BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR OFFENCE CHARGE D UNDER

SECTION 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34

OF IPC, 1860

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE ………………………………………...APPELLANT

VERSUS

MR.SHYAM AND MR.SHAH

AND OTHERS………………………………………RESPONDENT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 List of Abbreviation
 Index of Authority
* Table of cases
* Books
* Journals
* Websites
* Statutes
 Statement of Jurisdiction
 Statement of Facts
 Issues Raised
 Arguments Advanced
 Prayer
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 & And
 A.P. Andhra Pradesh
 AIR All India Report
 ANR. Another
 CRPC Code Of Criminal Procedure
 IPC Indian Penal Code
 HON’ble Honorable
 E.G. Example
 NO. Number
 ORS. Others
 r/w Read with
 S./SEC Section
 SC Supreme Court
 SCC Supreme Court Cases
 St. State
 U/S Under Section
 V. Versus
 TN Tamil Nadu
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Milmadhub Sirchar Vs R (1885)

2. Virsa Singh Vs The State of Punjab (1958)
3. Sarju Prasad Vs State of Bihar (1965)
4. State Vs Nitin Arora & Anr (2014)
5. R Vs. Barkat Ali (1914)
6. R Vs. Basudev Ghosh (1993)
7. Leo Roy Frey Vs. Suppdt.Distt.Jail (1958)
8. State of Maharashtra Vs. Somnath Thapa (1996)
9. State of Haryana Vs. Harpal Singh & Ors. (1978)
10.Ramaswmi Ayyangar &Ors. Vs. The state of Tamil Nadu
11.State of rajasthan Vs. Gurbachan Singh
12. Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2006)
13. Shakti Vahini Vs. union of India 2018
14. Dhandayuthan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,1994
15. BD Khunte Vs. UOI,2015
16. Budhi Singh Vs. State of HP 2013

BOOK

1. Ratanlal and Dhiralal’s THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

2. Justice M. Monir, revised by Deoti Nanda’s THE LAW OF
EVIDENCE
3. DR. S.R. Myneni’ THE LAW EVIDENCE
4. Ratanlal and Dhirala’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
5. Prof. T. Bhattacharya’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
6. K.D. Gaur’ THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
7. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
8. Glanvile William’s TEXT BOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW
9. S.N. Misra’s THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 10.Tandon’s THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
11.V.N. Shukla’s THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
12.M.P. Jain’s INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
13.DR.J.N. Pandey’s CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA
14.Prof. K. Kasim IPS’s TAMIL NADU POLICE HANDBOOK

JOURNALS

1. All India Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases
3. Indian Law Reporter

WEBSITES

1. WWW.legalserviceidia.com
2. https://www.juris.nic.in
3. https://www.lawnext.com
4. https://bwg.ipleaders.in/case-analysis
5. https://www.livelaw.com
6. https://www.sccouline.com
7. https://www.casemine.com
8. https://www.indiankannon.org

STATUES

1. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,1973
4. THE EVIDENCE,1872.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has approached this apex
Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution,

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution enshrines that:-

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court –

(1) Not with standing anything in the chapter, The Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any Judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made any Court or Tribunal in the territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces. The Appellant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
present petition is maintainable .
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Shah, a farmer, is living with his wife (Mrs. Rama), son (Mr. Sohall) and daughter (Ms.
Sirisha) In a remote village of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Shah with his meager source of income
was managing his family needs respectfully, While his wife (Rama) and his son (Sohall) help
him in his day to day work, His son Mr.sohall could not go to school because of his Father’s
poor financial position.

However, his daughter, Ms. Srisha joined a reputed engineering collage, in the nearby town,
with the financial support from the local business men. Ms. Shrisha’s collage is about 12km
away from her house. She used to go by public transport, like shared auto or by bus.

Mr. kiran, a boy living in the same village, is working as a data entry operator in a private
company in the town where Ms. Sirisha’s collage is located. Incidentally, both Mr. kiran and
Ms. Sirisha go to the town in the same public transport. While going to town and coming
back home, both got access and rapport to speak to each other, and eventually, both have
become good friends and started liking each other.

On 10th Aug, 2024, Mr. shah, after coming to know the intimate relationship that has
developed between Mr. kiran and his daughter, discussed the matter with his brother Mr.
shyam. Upon his advice, Mr. shah warned Mr. kiran with severe consequences and severely
admonished him. Mr. shah also scolded his daughter to refrain from meeting Mr. kiran.

Before this, Mr. sohall on an occasion took Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) from
Mr. kiran for same personal reasons. On August 17, 2014, Mr. Sohall called Mr. kiran to his
house to repay the loan amount Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement. At about 8:30pm, on
the same day, when Mr. kiran came to Mr. Sohall’s house, everybody finished their dinner
and waiting for Mr. Kiran. Mr. Sohall gave Rs.50,000/- to Mr. kiran and asked him to leave
immediately.

While Mr. kiran was about to leave the place, Ms. Sirisha suddenly came running out of the
house and hugged him from behind. She was crying loud, requesting Mr. kiran to take her
with him away from her father’s house. Before Mr. kiran could gain senses from such a
sudden incident, Mr. Shah rushed to his daughter and dragged her inside the house and bolted
the doors from outside.
Mr. Shyam, (brother of Mr. shah), In a fit of anger, brought a lathi, usually available in every
house, and started beating Mr. kiran with lathi on his head and chest. Mr. Shah, shouted ‘kill
him’ Mr. Sohall caught hold of Mr. kiran to prevent his escape.

In the meantime, Ms. Sirisha managed to escape from an open window and rushed to protect
her lover. Unfortunately, she also received three serious blows on her head and collapsed
unconscious. With the Intervention of neighbours, both were taken to the hospital where Mr.
Kiran survived but Ms. Sirisha died after 10 days of her admission in the hospital.

The post-mortem report confirmed that she suffered injuries on head and fracture of 3 ribs.
According to the post-mortem report ‘none of these injuries independently was sufficient to
cause her death’, while ‘they cumulatively were sufficient to caused death in the ordinary
course of nature’.

First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 154 of CRPC in police station
against Mr. Shyam (Accused 1), Mr. Shah (Accused 2) Mr. Sohail ( Accused 3) for the death
of Ms. Sirisha and for attempt to murder Mr. kiran.

The charges were framed against all the three accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the death of Ms. Sirisha. And they were also charged
under Section 307 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to commit Murder of
Mr. kiran.

The sessions Court convicted them and imposed sentence of death for causing death of Ms.
Sirisha. They were also convicted for attempt to murder Mr. kiran and were sentenced to
7years imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of all the accused for ‘attempt to
Murder’ Mr. kiran and reduced the term of imprisonment of 5 years.

However, the High Court changed the conviction of all the accused for ‘Murder’ into offence
of ‘Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder’ for causing death of Ms. Sirisha as they
were under grave and sudden provocation, when Mr. kiran and the girls hugged each other in
their presence.

The state has preferred and appeal in Supreme Court challenging the order of High Court for
convicting them merely for ‘Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder’ but not for
‘murder’ of Ms. Sirisha.
All the three accused have also preferred cross appeals before the Supreme Court challenging
their convictions both for causing death of Ms. Sirisha and also for making an attempt to
murder Mr. kiran by High Court.

Since all these facts and circumstances brought out in these appeals are part of the same
incident, the Supreme Court decided to hear and decided these appeals together.
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES 1: WHETHER MR. SHYAM (ACCUSED 1), MR. SHAH

(ACCUSED 2), MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3), ARE LIABLE FOR THE
DEATH OF MS. SIRISHA AND FOR ATTEMPT TO MURDER OF MR.
KIRAN ?

ISSUES 2: WHETHER MR. SHYAM (ACCUSED 1), MR. SHAH

(ACCUSED 2), MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3), ARE LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 120A AND 120B OF IPC, 1860?

ISSUES 3: WHETHER MR. SHAH IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 307

R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC , 1860?

ISSUES 4: WHETHER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED?

ISSUES 5: WHETHER THE ACT OF MR.SHYAM (ACCUSED 1), MR.

SHAH (ACCUSED 2), MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3) AMOUNT TO
GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER MR. SHYAM (ACCUSED 1), MR. SHAH (ACCUSED 2),

MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3), ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF MS.
SIRISHA AND FOR ATTEMPT TO MURDER OF MR. KIRAN ?

YES,
The council for the appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Mr.
Shyam (A1), Mr. Shah (A2), Mr. Sohall (A3) are liable for the death of Ms. Sirisha and for
attempt to murder of Mr. kiran.

ISSUE 2:

WHETHER MR. SHYAM (ACCUSED 1 ), MR.SHAH (ACCUSED 2),

MR.SOHALL (ACCUSED 3), ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 120A
AND 120B OF IPC ,1860 ?

YES,
The council for the appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Mr.
Shyam (A1), Mr. Shah (A2), Mr. Sohall (A3) is subject to the liability under Section
120A,120B of IPC ,1860 Which is Criminal Conspiracy and Punishment of Criminal
Conspiracy respectively.

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER MR. SHAH IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 307 R/W

SECTION 34 OF IPC,1860 ?

YES,
The council for the appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Mr.
Shah is liable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC,1860.
ISSUE 4:

WHETHER ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS

VIOLATED ?

YES,
The council for the appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Article
21 of the Indian Constitution is Violated.

ISSUE 5:

WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. SHYAM (ACCUSED 1), MR. SHAH

(ACCUSED 2), MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3) ARE AMOUNT TO
GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION ?

NO,
The council for the Appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the act
of Mr. Shyam (A1), Mr. Shah (A2), Mr. Sohall (A3) does not amount to grave and sudden
provocation.
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER MR. SHYAM (A1), MR. SHAH (A2), MR. SOHALL (A3),
ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF MS.SIRISHA AND FOR
ATTEMPT TO MURDER OF MR. KIRAN ?

1.1The council for the Appellant humbly submit before that Hon’ble Supreme Court, that
Mr. Shyam, Mr. Shah, Mr. Sohall are liable for the death of Ms. Sirisha and for attempt to
murder of Mr. Kiran.

1.2 The High Court have reduced the charges from ‘murder’ to ‘Culpable Homicide not
amounting to murder’. But the action of the accused, especially the use of a lathi to beat Mr.
Kiran, demonstrate a clear intention to cause death.

1.3 The relationship between Ms. Sirisha and Mr. kiran was already known by their family
and so the intimate did not provide a valid reason for the accused to react with such violence.
Hence the principles of “grave and sudden provocation” might not apply here.

1.4 Section 300 of IPC “Murder”.

1. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death
(or)
2. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused
(or)
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, (or)
4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.

1.5 “MURDER” can be defined as intentionally causing the death of another person, or
causing bodily injury that is likely to result in death. The intention to kill doesn’t need to be
premeditated and it can arise in the heat of the moment.

1.6 And it was clearly defined in Section 3001 of IPC that “act is done with the intention of

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Section 300 of IPC,1860 - Murder

causing bodily injury which is sufficient for the cause of death” hence under Sec 300 of
IPC,such act is also comes under Murder and shall be punishable under Sec 3022.

1.7 In a case of

Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885) 3

The deceased was kicked and beated several times by the perpetrator, including after the
victim lost consciousness. In this case, the court ruled that the murder would have known that
repeated beating and kicks would certainly lead to his death. Therefore, he was charged with
murder.
If the perpetrator’s actions are intended to cause physical harm, it is, in the usual sense,
sufficient to cause the person’s death. Subjective factors end with the usual act of acting to
kill or hurt a person and fully knowing the cause of enough physical harm to kill the person.
No further investigation is needed in this context.

1.8 Virsa Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (1958)

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case Virsa Singh Vs. the state of Punjab
(1958)4, Clarified the application of Section 300, Thirdly of the IPC, which defines
“Murder”.The appellant, Virsa Singh was convicted to murder for inflicting a single but fatal
injury on the deceased , Khem Singh.

The Court emphasized that for a conviction under Sec 300, thirdly, the prosecution must
prove the presence of a bodily injury, its nature, the intention to inflict that particular injury
and that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court
upheld Virsa Singh’s conviction, establishing a critical precedent for interpreting the
intention and sufficiency of injury in murder cases.

1.9 In the present case the accused have used a lathi and beated on head and chest.
Both Mr. kiran and Ms. Sirisha has suffered injuries on their head. Accused intentionally
beated on head to cause death. The act of the accused was heinous.

1.10The post- mortem report of Ms.Sirisha confirmed that she suffered injuries on head and
fracture of 3 ribs, It was clearly mentioned in the fact “ None of these injuries

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Section 302 of IPC,1860 -Punishment for murder

3. AIR 1885

4. 1958 AIR SC 465

independently was sufficient to cause her death, While they cumulatively were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature”.

1.11 Sec 300(3)5 of IPC perfectly connected with the matter said in the Post– mortem report
of Ms. Sirisha, Hence it was clear that Ms. Sirisha was murdered by the accused and the
accused are liable for the murder.

1.12 Sec 302 of IPC,1860 –” Punishment for murder”

whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisoned for life and shall be
liable to fine.

It was humbly submitted that, the accused are liable for murder, and have to be punished
under Sec 3026 of IPC, 1860 with death or life imprisonment which this Hon’ble Supreme
Court deem fit.

Also, The High Court have confirmed the conviction of all the accused for “ Attempted to
murder’ of Mr. Kiran and reduced the term of imprisonment to 5 years.

1.13 SEC 3077 of IPC, 1860 : Attempt to Murder.

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstance that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also
be liable to fine, and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable
either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned.

1.14 SEC 307 8 of IPC , 1860 : Punishment for Attempt to Murder

When any person offending under this Section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he
may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Section 300(3) of IPC,1860 -states that if someone intentionally causes bodily injury to another person,
and the injury is likely to cause death, then the person is guilty of murder. The injury must also be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

6. Section 302 of IPC,1860 -Punishment for Murder

7. Section 307 of IPC,1860 -Attempt to Murder

8. Section 307 of IPC, 1860 - Punishment for attempting to commit Murder

1.15 There are some stages of Crime, Namely
 Intention ( Mens rea )
 Preparation
 Attempt
 Accomplishment

In this case the accused has the intention to kill Mr. Kiran it was clearly said in the fact that
on 17th August,2014 Mr.Sohall called Mr.Kiran to his house to repay the loan amount of Rs
50,000/- All the accused already known the intimate relationship between Ms. Sirisha and
Mr.Kiran, then why they called Mr.Kiran to their place? The question shows the intention of
the accused.

1.16 Up next, The accused have prepared to kill Mr.Kiran. they have placed the lathi very
near to the place where the crime was committed.

1.17And they made an attempt to kill Mr. Kiran. It was also said in the fact that Mr.Shyam
started beating Mr.Kiran with lathi on his head and chest and Mr.Shah shouted “Kill Him”
because of the intervention of neighbours both were taken to the hospital where Kiran
survived but Ms.Sirisha died after 10 days of her admission in the hospital.

1.18 Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar ( 1965 ),

The facts of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1965)9 were that madan mohan saha and
Shankar Prasad Shrivastava were attacked by sunil Prasad while they were passing through
the dhaime chowk at about 1pm . They sustained grievous hurts and these injuries were
inflicted upon them by sunil with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance
that if they had resulted in death the offence would have been that of murder.

In this case, The Supreme Court held that the state of mind of the accused has to be deduced
from the circumstances and the motive would be relevant to consider in those circumstance,
thus the accused was held guilty under Sec 30710 of IPC, 1860.

1.19It was humbly submitted, that the brutal act of the accused have to be punished with the
maximum punishment which Hon’ble Court deem fit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. AIR 1965 SC 843

10. Section 307 of IPC,1860 - Punishment for attempted murder.

ISSUE 2:
WHETHER MR.SHYAM (A1), MR.SHAH (A2), MR.SOHALL (A3) ARE
LIABLE UNDER SECTION 120A AND 120B OF IPC,1860?

2.1 The council for the appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that,
Mr.Shyam , Mr. Shah, Mr. Sohall is also subject to be liable under Section 120A and 120B of
IPC,1860.

2.2 Here are some key consideration,

2.3 In fact Mr. Sohall called Mr. Kiran on August 17, 2014, to his house to repay the loan
amount 50000/- as full and final settlement. They are waiting their house at 8.30 pm on the
same day after finishing their dinner.

2.4 Here, they call Mr. Kiran to their own house for repaying that loan amount, why should
they call him on their own house on that time instead of any other place in outside.

2.5 And also on that night Mr. Shyam (brother of Mr. Shah) is in the house unwantedly.

2.6 So, They have clear intention to call him to their house, there must be an conspiracy in
between them.

2.7 Section 120A11 - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
1) An illegal act,or

2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a

Criminal Conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a

criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof.

2.8 EXPLANATION - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to the object.

2.9 INGREDIENTS - The ingredients of this offence are-

1) That there must be an agreement between the person who are alleged to conspire; and

2) That the agreement should be

( i ) for doing of an illegal act,or

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Section 120A of IPC,1860 -Criminal Conspiracy.

 ( ii ) for doing by illegal means an act which may not itself be illegal.

3) That the agreement should be

The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more
persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must
inquire whether the two person are independently pursuing the same end or they have come
together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the
latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is
required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a
continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by
choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act
or series of acts, he would be held guilty under 120-B12 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.10 ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY -

(a) an object to be accomplished,

(b) A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object,

(c) An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby,
they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplished of the object by the
means embodied in the agreement, by any effectual means,and

(d) In the jurisdiction where the statue required an overt act.

2.11 The Court referred to the Landmark case

State through Superintendent of Police Vs. Nalini & Ors.(1999)13 In which the
Supreme Court summarized the ingredients for constituting a criminal conspiracy which
are as follows:

Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or
legal act by illegal means.

The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone
does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and joint hands with persons
having the same intention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Section 120B of IPC,1860- Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy

13. AIR 1999 5 SC 253

Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy
by direct evidence.Usually,the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred
from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.

Where in pursuance of the agreement,the conspirators commit offenses individually or adopt

illegal means to do a legal act that has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy,all of them will
be liable for such offenses even if some of them have not actively participated in the
commission of those offenses.

2.12 R Vs. Barkat Ali (1914)14

This was one of the earliest cases related to criminal conspiracy in India. In this case, the
court held that for a conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement between two or
more persons to commit an illegal act and an intention to bring about the illegal act.

2.13 SECTION 34 AND 120A OF IPC, 1860

There is not much substantial difference between conspiracy as defined in Section 120A and
acting on a common intention, as contemplated in Section 34 15. while in the former, the gist
of the offence is bare engagement and association to break the law even though the illegal act
does not follow, the gist of the offence under Section 34 is the commission of a criminal act
in furtherance of a common intention of all the offenders, which means that there should be
unity of criminal behaviour resulting in something, for which an individual would be
punishable, if it were all done by himself alone. Another point of difference is that a single
person cannot be convicted under Section 120A16 and therefore , where all the accused except
one were acquitted, the Supreme Court ordered his acquittal also, whereas under Section 34,
r/w some other specific offence, a single person can be convicted because each is responsible
for the acts of all others.

2.14 R Vs. Basudev Ghosh (1993)17

This case dealt with the issue of the different between criminal conspiracy and abetment. The
court held that while both criminal conspiracy and abetment deal with the commission of a
crime, they are distinct offenses and must be proved separately.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. AIR 1914

15. Section 34 of IPC,1860 -Common Intention

16. Section 120A of IPC, 1860-Criminal Conspiracy

17. AIR (1993)

2.15 Leo Roy Frey Vs. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958)18
This case dealt with the issue of whether a conspiracy can be established in the absence of a
formal agreement between the conspirators. The supreme Court held that a formal agreement
is not necessary to establish a conspiracy and that a conspiracy can be inferred from the
circumstances and the actions of the parties.

2.16 Section 120B19 of IPC -Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy.

(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards shall,
where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

2.17 State of Maharashtra Vs. Somnath Thapa (1996) 20

In this case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of corroborative
evidence in proving a criminal conspiracy.

The court stated that while the prosecution need not necessarily prove the exact date or time
of the agreement, it must present evidence that strongly suggests the existence of an
agreement between the accused parties.

The court further added that the conspiracy’s objective must be clearly established through
circumstantial evidence.

2.18 It was humbly submitted that, the application of the section for the Criminal Conspiracy
was unlawful against Mr. Kiran and Ms. Sirisha.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. AIR 119 SCR 822

19. Section 120B of IPC,1860- Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy

20. AIR 1996 4 SCC 659

ISSUE 3:

Whether Mr. Shah is liable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860?

3.1 The council for the Appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that
Mr. Shah is liable under Section 30721 r/w Section 3422 of IPC,1860.

3.2 Abetment is the act of encouraging, helping, or conspiring with someone to do something
wrong or illegal for example, abetment can be involved in murder.

3.3 According to the Indian Penal Code, a person is considered to have abetted a crime if
they,

1. Instigated someone to commit the crime.

2. Conspired with others to commit the crime.

3. Intentionally aided the crime through an act or omission.

3.4 In this case Mr. Shah has abetted Mr. Shyam and Mr. Sohall it was clearly said in the fact
that Mr. Shah, shouted “kill him” and from this it was confirmed that Mr. Shah is liable for
abetment under IPC,1860.

3.5 According to Section 10923 of IPC,1860 whoever abets any offence shall, if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by
the code for the punished of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the
offence.

Moreover, the offense of abetment is committed even if the act is incomplete or interrupted.

3.6 Mr.shah shouted that “kill him” but it was incomplete and interrupted by the nighbours,
still Mr. Shah is liable for the offense of abetment.

3.7 State of Haryana Vs. Harpal singh & ors .(1978)24

In the case the appeals preferred by the State of Haryana against the Judgement of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. Ram Swarup and Bahadur were charged for offenses under
Section 30225 r/w Section 34 of IPC,1860. Harpal was charged under section 302 r/w

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Section 307 of IPC,1860 - Attempts to murder

22. Section 34 of IPC, 1860 - Common intention

23. Section 109 of IPC,1860 - Punishment for Abetment

24. AIR 1978 SC 1530

25. Section 302 of IPC,1860 - Punishment for Murder

Section 109 of IPC, 1860. Harpal was found guilty under Section 302 r/w Section 109 of
IPC, 1860 and sentenced to 7 Years Rigorous imprisonment.

3.8 Thus under Section 10926 of IPC,1860 which defines the punishments for abetment,
under this Section Mr. Shah is equally liable for the offence. There the offence is attempt
murder. Hence Mr. Shah is liable under Section 30727 of IPC , 1860.

3.9 According to the fact of the case Mr. Shah is also found guilty for the offence of criminal
intimidation.

3.10Section 50328 of IPC, 1860 defines Criminal intimidation.

“Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested,with intent to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do,as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat,commits
criminal intimidation.

As Mr. shah shouted “kill him” in front of Mr. Kiran , that makes him afraid of life , this is
taken as threat and cause of grievous hurt to Mr. Kiran , Mr shah is guilty under Section
506 29 of IPC ,1860.

3.11 Section 506 of IPC -Punishment for Criminal Intimidation.

Whoever commits the offence of Criminal Intimidation shall be Punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to Two Years or with Fine, or write Both, if
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt , or to cause the destruction of any property by fire ,
or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life , for with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to Seven Years , or to impute unchastity to a women, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to Seven
Years or with Fine or with Both.

Thus , Mr. shah is also found guilty under Section 506 of IPC,1860.

3.12 Section 3430 of IPC,1860 “Common Intention ”

When a criminal Act is done by several persons In furtherance to the common intention of all
each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. Section 109 of IPC,1860 - Punishment for Abetment

27. Section 307 of IPC,1860 - Attempts to murder

28. Section 503 of IPC,1860- Criminal Intimidation

29. Section 506 of IPC,1860- Punishment for Criminal Intimidation

30. Section 34 of IPC,1860 - Common Intention

3.13 Section 3431 of IPC establishes joint liability, meaning that all people involved in a
Criminal act are equally responsible for the consequences , even if one person played a more
prominent role or caused the harm. (Section 34 establishes the joint liability for criminal acts
committed by multiple people)

3.14 Section 34applies when multiple people commit a crime in furtherance of a common
intention. Active participation by each accused is not required to establish liability under
Section 34 of IPC ,1860.

common intention doesn’t necessarily mean that there was a prior agreement.

3.15 Ramaswami Ayyangar &Ors Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu32.

It was held that since physical violence was involved , it is a requirement for the accused to
be physically present there while the act was committed . only then can be held liable under
Sec 34, as his presence itself amounts to participation .

3.16State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurbacham Sing33.

The court observed that common intention can be formed in the spur of the movement . It
was also held that Gurbacham Sing along with all accused persons is responsible for the
offence of murder . It doesn’t matter what part they played in the commission of the crime.

3.17 It was humbly submitted that Mr. shah is found guilty for the offence under Sec 307 34
r/w 34 Sec 10935, Sec 50636 of IPC, 1860.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. Section 34 of IPC,1860 - Common intention

32. AIR 1976 SC 2027

33. SCC 711

34. Section 307 of IPC,1860 - Attempts to Murder

35. Section 109 of IPC, 1860 -Punishment for Abetment

36. Section 506 of IPC, 1860- Punishment for Criminal Intention

ISSUE 4:

Whether Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is violated?

4.1 The council for the Appellant humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that
Article 2137 of Indian Constitution is Violated.

4.2 Article 21: protection of life and personal liberty:-

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

4.3 Yes, the right to choose a life partner in a Fundamental Right in India that is protected.
This right is also recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution.

4.4 The right to choose a life partner is a Fundamental Right that is protected by the state and
the police.

4.5The consent of family, community, or clam is not required for two adults to get married.
Any infringement of this right is a violation of the Indian Constitution.

4.6 Any kind of torture, torment, or ill-treatment in the name of honor that limits an
individuals choice to love and marriage is illegal.

4.7 In India, the right to choose one’s partner and relationship, free from interference by
family or community, is enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21 protecting individual
in matter of marriage and personal choice.

4.8 Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees its citizen the right to marry the person of one’s
choice. This privilege can only be taken away by the law, not by anyone else, not even by the
person’s family “An intrinsic part of Article 21 of the constitution would be the freedom of
choice in marriage”.

Case law:

4.13Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2006)38

In this case, a major women named Lata Married a person from another caste at her own free

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution - pro

38. 2006 AIR SCW 3499
will, and this inter-caste marriage was opposed by her family members, which led to a huge
fight, violence, and chaos in the two families, including the threat of life to the husband and
his family members.

The Supreme Court held that the right to marry a person of one’s own choice is protected
within Article 2139 of the Constitution. The Court also directed the police to take action
against anyone who threatens, harasses, or performs any kind of violence against the
petitioner, the petitioner’s husband in accordance with the law. This was one of the first cases
that validated the right of a major to choose a partner of his/her own choice, be it an inter-
caste marriage.

Ms. Sirisha and Mr. Kiran are adults and they have the right to choose their life partner, it
was ensured in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

But, the family member warned Mr. Kiran with severe consequences and severely
admonished him and Ms. Sirisha was refrained from meeting Mr. Kiran.

4.14 Shakti vahini Vs. Union of India201840.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

(1) The right to choose one’s partner is a fundamental right. Regardless of

family. Community, or clan agreement.

(2) It is illegal for khap Panchayats or any other assembly to prevent two
consenting adults from marrying.

(3) The state government should strictly monitor areas where khap Panchayats
operate.

(4) Police officers and District Administration officers should immediately

report any proposed khap panchayat gathering to higher authorities.

(5) The state governments should create special cells to protect the safety of
couples.

(6) The state governments should prosecute cases of honor killings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Protection of life and personal liberty
40. AIR 2018 SC 1601
4.15 Thus, the Fundamental Rights of Article 2141 of Mr. Kiran and Ms. Sirisha were
violated.

4.16 It was humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that Article 21 are violated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution –Protection of life and personal liberty
ISSUE 5 :

WHETHER THE ACT OF MR.SHYAM (ACCUSED 1) ,MR. SHAH

(ACCUSED 2), MR. SOHALL (ACCUSED 3) AMOUNT TO GRAVE
AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION ?

5.1 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the act of the Mr.
Shyam , Mr. Shah and Mr. Sohall, did not amount to grave and sudden provocation. The
Appellants were charged for offence of murder read with section 3442, and they contended
that there was grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased, but the argument
doesn’t confirm to the facts of the case.

5.2 Section 30043 lays down essential ingredients, where in Culpable Homicide amounts to
murder. Sec 300 after laying down the cases in which culpable homicide becomes murder,
states certain exceptional situations under which,if murder is committed, it is reduced to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec 30444,IPC and not under
Sec 30245of IPC ;Grave and sudden provocation being of the grounds.

5.3It is only where the following ingredients of Exception 1 are satisfied that an accused can
claim mitigation of the offence committed by him from murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder :

* The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.

* The provocation so given must have been grave.

* The provocation given by the deceased must have been sudden.

* The offender by reason of such grave and sudden provocation must have
been deprived of his power of self-control; and

* The offender must have killed the deceased or any other person by mistake or
accident during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control.

5.4 It was said in the case BD Khunte Vs. UOI, 201546

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. Section 32 of IPC, 1860- Common Intention

43. Section 300 of IPC,1860 – Murder

44. Section 304 of IPC,1860 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

45. Section 302 of IPC, 1860- Punishment for murder

46. Cr LJ 243
5.5 Exception- Grave and Sudden Provocation as mitigation
The act must be done whilst the person doing it is deprived of Self- control by grave and
sudden provocation. That is, it must be done under the immediate impulse of provocation.

The expression ‘grave’ indicates that provocation be of such a nature so as to give cause for
alarm to the accused. ‘sudden’ means an action which must be quick and unexpected so far as
to provoke the accused. The question of whether provocation was grave and sudden is a
question of fact and not one of law. Each case is to be considered according to its own facts.

The test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, so that an
unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is not entitled to rely on provocation which
would not have led an ordinary person to act as he did.

* The particular case fails to pass the test of “grave and sudden provocation”
for a reasonable man would not have been taken by extreme resentment/ anger as show by the
accused.

5.6 Principles relating to “grave and sudden provocation” summarized by

the Supreme Court whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the
accused, placed in the as that of accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-
control.

* The provocation wasn’t grave enough, as the mere meeting of Ms. Sirisha and
Mr. Kiran shouldn’t have enraged Mr. Shayam to an extent to beat Ms. Sirisha to death. And
while he was doing the same to Mr. Kiran the accused abusing the victim,waiting for him to
die from his injuries.

* The provocation wasn’t sudden as Mr.Sohall was already expecting Mr.Kiran

to come over by the evening , and shouldn’t have been provoked to beat them to death .

5.7 The Mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden
provocation for committing the offence.

In order to find out whether the last act of provocation on which the offender caused the
death was sufficiently grave to deprive the accused of the power of self-control ,the previous
acts of provocation caused by the person can always be taken into consideration.

5.8 In was said in the case of Dhandayuthan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ,199447

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47. 1994 Cr LJ 1587

5.9 Mr. Kiran and Ms. Sirisha used to meet every day, the family members already know
about the intimate relationship between them and it is not something new. It could have
enraged Mr. Shah to some extent ,but not provoked him to an extent to let him being
mercilessly bantered and let to die at the hands of Mr. Shyam.

5.10 The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influenced of passion arising from
that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time ,or otherwise
giving room and scope for provocation and calculation.

It was said in the case of KM Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra

* Mr. Kiran was invited by Mr. Sohail thus making it evident that the act
was pre - mediated , and not a result of any certain provocation.

* In the particular case, as has been mentioned in the facts, quite contrary to
one blow, there was continuous beating which the victim was subject to she died of the
cumulative effect of all the injuries.

5.11 An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a
person placed in such circumstances could lose self-control but only temporarily and that too,
in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts
done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury.

5.12 It was said in the case Budhi singh Vs. State of HP, 201348
The test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, so that an
unusually excitable or pugnacious individuals is not entitled to rely on provocation which
would not have led an ordinary person to act as he did. It is important to consider whether a
sufficient interval has lapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable person time to cool,
and account must be taken of the instrument with which the homicide had been effected.

5.13 It was humbly submitted that, the act of Mr.Shyam, Mr. Shah, Mr. sohall does not
amount to grave and sudden provocation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48. 2013 Cr LJ 962(SC)

 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the lights of the facts used, issued raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited the counsel for the Appellant most humbly and respectfully prayed
before this HON’BLE SUPREME COURT that it may be graciously pleased to

1. Mr.Shyam, Mr. Shah, Mr. Sohall are liable for the death of Ms. Sirisha and for
the attempt murder of Mr. Kiran.

2. Mr. Sohall subject to liable under Section 339 and 340 of IPC,1860.

3. Mr. Shah is liable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC,1860.

4. Fundamental rights of Ms.Sirisha and Mr. Kiran was violated which are
guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

5. The act of Ms. Sirisha does not amount to grave and sudden provocation.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other, which this HON’BLE may deem fit in
the light of Justice Equity, and good conscience. For this act of kindness, the counsel
shall duty bound forever pray all of which is respectfully submitted counsels for the
Appellant.