Scribd
Upload
10 views2 pages

Brief Notes of Arguments for Revision

The appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying relief under Section 22 of THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, due to evidence of mental instability and precedents supporting diminished responsibility. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as circumstantial evidence and alternative perpetrator theories were insufficient. Procedural irregularities and investigative lapses compromised the trial's integrity, warranting reconsideration of the conviction to ensure justice.

Uploaded by

Shruti Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views2 pages

Brief Notes of Arguments for Revision

The appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying relief under Section 22 of THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, due to evidence of mental instability and precedents supporting diminished responsibility. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as circumstantial evidence and alternative perpetrator theories were insufficient. Procedural irregularities and investigative lapses compromised the trial's integrity, warranting reconsideration of the conviction to ensure justice.

Uploaded by

Shruti Sharma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Brief Notes of Arguments for Revision

1. The Trial Court Erred in Denying the Appellant the Benefit Under Section 22 of THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

• Legal Basis: Section 22 provides relief to individuals whose mental instability impairs their
ability to form criminal intent (mens rea).

• Evidence of Mental Instability:

o Appellant underwent behavioral therapy and possessed stronger mental health


medications.

o Contradictory narco-analysis results suggest dissociative identity disorder or other


severe psychological issues.

• Precedents:

o Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964): Recognized diminished


responsibility due to mental incapacity.

o Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970): Mental disorders affecting


comprehension must be considered in criminal liability.

• Error of Trial Court: Ignored critical evidence of mental instability, failing to apply Section 22
effectively.

2. The Prosecution Failed to Prove the Appellant’s Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

• Circumstantial Evidence:

o Recovery of valuables and stronger medication is inconclusive and fails to establish a


direct link to the murders.

o Blood-stained knife lacks forensic evidence directly implicating the appellant.

• Alternative Perpetrator (Ramu):

o Suspicious behavior: Fled to Bihar post-crime with unexplained money.

o Opportunity: Knew familial tensions and could have staged the crime to implicate
the appellant.

o Testimony: Self-serving and unsupported by corroboration.

• Precedents:

o Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Circumstantial evidence


must exclude all other hypotheses.

o Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973): Suspicion cannot replace proof;
benefit of doubt to accused.

3. Procedural Irregularities and Investigative Lapses Vitiated the Trial


• Contradictory Narco-Analysis Results:

o Forensic psychologist’s conclusion suggests irregularities in the psychological


evaluation.

o Results point to distinct psychological profiles, raising doubts about the


investigation's credibility.

• Investigative Lapses:

o Inadequate examination of the crime scene.

o Failure to verify Ramu’s background and analyze his involvement comprehensively.

• Impact on Fair Trial:

o Compromised integrity of the evidence and fairness of the proceedings.

o Violated principles of natural justice as outlined in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India


(1978).

• Precedents:

o Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952): Emphasized a


complete chain of evidence for conviction.

o Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010): Investigative lapses weaken the


prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to mental instability, lack of conclusive evidence,
and procedural lapses. The conviction must be set aside or reconsidered to ensure justice.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy