TEAM CODE: 204

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 302r/w 34, 307r/w 34
OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

APPELANT…………………………………………………………………………………
STATE
VERSUS
RESPONDENT…………………………………………………………………..
MR SHYAM AND MR SHAH AND OTHERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• List of Abbreviations
• Index of Authorities
• Table of Cases
• Books
• Websites
• Statutes
• Statement of Jurisdiction
• Statement of Facts 8 Statement of Charges
• Summary of Arguments
• Arguments Advanced
1. Issue-I: Whether the family involved in Sirisha's
murder and the attempt to murder of Mr. Kiran?
2. Issue-II: Whether Mr. Shyam be held liable
under Section 153 of IPC or not?
3. Issue-III: Whether Mr. Sohail be held liable
under Sections 339 and 340 of IPC or not?
4. Issue-IV: Whether Mr. Shah be held liable for
provoking Mr. Shyam under section 153 of IPC
or not?
• Prayer
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

• & And
• A.P. Andhra Pradesh
• AIR All India Report
• Anr. Another
• HPC Hindania Penal Code
• CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
• E.g. Example
• Hon’ble Honorable
• IPC Indian Penal Code
• M.P. Madhya Pradesh
• No. Number
• Ors. Others
• r/w Read with
• Retd. Retired
• S./Sec. Section
• SC Supreme Court
• SCC Supreme Court Cases
• St. State
• U.P. Uttar Pradesh
• u/s Under Section
• v. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. State of Rajasthan v, Gurubachhan sing AIR SC 2022

2. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3. Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
4. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
5. Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
6. Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
7. City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 1432022
8. Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133
9. Vinod Katara vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 120

BOOKS:

1. RatanLal and DhiraLal‟sTHE LAW OF EVIDENCE

2. LAW OF EVIDENCE by Justice M. Monir, revised by Deoki Nanda
3. Prof. T Bhattacharya‟s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
4. Glanville Williams‟s TEXTBOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW
5. K.D Gaur‟s INDIAN PENAL CODE
6. RatanLal and DhirajLal’s THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
7. S.N Misra‟sTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
8. Tandon‟s CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
9. James R. Acker and JoAnne M. Malatesha’s LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
10. Janak Raj Jai’s BAIL LAW AND PROCEDURES
11. K Kamal’s MEDICAL LAWS

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.juris.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/Advancedlegalsearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. Shah, a farmer, is living with his wife (Mrs. Rama), Son (Mr.Sohail) and Daughter
(Ms. Sirisha) in a remote village of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Shah with his major source of
income was managing his family needs respectfully, while his wife (Rama) and his Son
(Sohail) help him in his day to day work. His son, Mr. Sohail could not go to school because
of his father’s poor financial position.
2. However, his daughter, Ms. Sirisha joined a reputed engineering college, in the
nearby town, with the financial support from the local business men. Ms. Sirisha’s college is
about 12 km away from her house. She used to go by public transport, like shared auto or by
bus.
3. 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 College 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 to speak to each other, and eventually, both have
become good friends and started liking each other.
4. On 10th Aug, 2014, 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.
5. Before this, Mr. Sohail on an occasion took Rs.50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands
Only) from Mr. Kiran for some personal reasons. On August 17, 2014, Mr. Sohail called Mr.
Kiran to his house to repay the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- as full and final settlement. At
about 8:30pm, on the same day, when Mr. Kiran came to Mr. Sohail’s house, everybody
finished their dinner and waiting for Mr. Kiran. Mr. Sohail gave Rs.50, 000/- to Mr. Kiran
and asked him to leave immediately.
6. 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 his senses from
such a sudden incident, Mr. Shah rushed to his daughter and dragged her inside the house
and bolted the doors from outside.
7. 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. Sohail caught hold of Mr. Kiran to prevent his escape.
8. 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 neighbors, both were taken to the hospital
where Mr. Kiran survived but Ms. Sirisha died after 10 days of her admission in the hospital.
9. 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 cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
10. First Information Report (FIR) was registered under section 154 of Cr P C in Police
Station against Mr. Shyam (Accused 1), Mr. Shah (Accused 2), Mr. Sohail (Accused 3) for
death of Ms. Sirisha and for attempt to murder Mr. Kiran.
11. The charges were framed against all the three accused under S. 302 r/w section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the death of Ms. Sirisha. And they were also charged
under Sec.307 r/w Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to commit murder of Mr.
Kiran.
12. 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 7 years imprisonment.
13. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction of all the accused for ‘attempt to
murder’ Mr. Kiran and reduced the term of imprisonment to 5 years.
14. 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 girl hugged each
other in their presence.
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) Notwithstanding anything in this 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 by 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 any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
The Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the present petition of the
appellant is not maintainable

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Problem 1: Was the family involved in Sirisha's murder and Mr. Kiran's attempted murder?
Problem 2: Is Mr. Shyam subject to liability under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code?
Problem 3: Is Mr. Sohail subject to liability under Sections 339 and 340 of the IPC?
Problem 4: Whether section 153 of the Criminal Code holds Mr. Shah accountable for inciting
Mr. Shyam Is it an IPC?
Problem 5: Whether section 498 will hold the family members accountable for mental cruelty
and the IPC 506 or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) prescribes
punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal intimidation” as defined in
Section 503 IPC is that. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation. The Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka
and Another. Therefore it is argued and submitted before this Hon’ble apex court that the
accused has merely shown threat and had no intention of executing his threat so given and
therefore according to the precedents so cited, the accused is not guilty of criminal intimidation.
The constructive liability under this section would arise only if two conditions are fulfilled:
a) There must be common intention to commit the crime and
b) There must be participation by all the persons in doing such act in furtherance of that
intention. If these two ingredients are established all the accused would be liable for the said
offence*(1)
*1 Gurdatta Mal AIR 1965 SC 257
Intention
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and if
a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the intention
of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence committed
amounts to murder
*2 The sudden incident of Ms. Sirisha hugging Mr. Kiran, which led to an outburst of emotions
from the accused, was an unexpected event that triggered their actions.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the family involved in Sirisha's murder and the attempt to murder of Mr.
Kiran?

1. The State argues that the High Court erred in reducing the charges from murder to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. They contend that the actions of the accused, especially the
use of a lathi to beat Mr. Kiran, demonstrate a clear intention to cause death.

2. The State may also argue that the relationship between Ms. Sirisha and Mr. Kiran, while
intimate, did not provide a valid reason for the accused to react with such violence. The principle
of “grave and sudden provocation” might not apply here.
3. They may present medical evidence and expert opinions to support their claim that the
cumulative injuries on Ms. Sirisha were sufficient to cause her death, even if each injury
individually might not have been lethal.
ISSUE II: Whether Mr. Shyam be held liable under Section 153 of IPC or not?
If the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both;
If the offence of rioting is not committed, be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with a fine, or with both.
Lack of Intention to Kill: The Appellants never had an intention to kill Mr. Kiran or Ms. Sirisha.
Their actions were impulsive reactions to an emotionally charged situation
The State can argue that even if there was a sudden provocation, the response by the accused was
excessively violent and disproportionate. The severity of the attack on both Mr. Kiran and Ms.
Sirisha, including the use of a lathi and the fact that they were both beaten, suggests a clear intent
to cause harm, if not death.
They can highlight the fact that Ms. Sirisha was unarmed and posed no immediate threat to the
accused when she hugged Mr. Kiran. This action alone should not have triggered such a violent
response from the accused, even if it was unexpected.
The State may argue that the accused’s actions were premeditated to some extent, as they
discussed the situation with Mr. Shyam and even warned Mr. Kiran a week prior. This could
indicate a degree of planning or intent to harm.
Medical experts can be called upon to provide further analysis, reinforcing the point that the
cumulative injuries on Ms. Sirisha’s head and the fractures in her ribs were, in fact, sufficient to
cause her death. This could challenge the notion that these injuries, when combined, did not lead
to her death.
The State can also emphasize that the relationship between Ms. Sirisha and Mr. Kiran, while
relevant, should not excuse the excessive violence and force employed by the accused. They can
argue that society’s norms and values have evolved, and violent reactions to intimate
relationships are no longer acceptable.

ISSUE III: Whether Mr. Sohail be held liable under Sections 339 and 340 of IPC or not?

The determination of whether Mr. Sohail can be held liable under Sections 339 and 340 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) would depend on the specific circumstances and the evidence presented
in the case. These sections deal with wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively.
Here are some key considerations:
Section 339 (Wrongful Restraint): This section pertains to intentionally obstructing a person to
prevent them from proceeding in a certain direction. In this case, if it can be demonstrated that
Mr. Sohail intentionally obstructed Mr. Kiran’s departure from his house by not allowing him to
leave immediately after repaying the loan, it could be argued that wrongful restraint occurred.

Section 340 (Wrongful Confinement):: Wrongful confinement involves intentionally confining a

person against their will. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Kiran’s presence in Mr. Sohail’s
house could determine whether this section is applicable. If Mr. Kiran was not allowed to leave,
or if there was any indication that he was confined against his will, this section could come into
play.

The applicability of these sections depends on whether there was an intentional act of restraint or
confinement, and if so, whether it was unlawful and against Mr. Kiran’s will. It’s crucial to
examine the evidence and circumstances closely to determine whether Mr. Sohail can be held
liable under these sections of the IPC. The final decision would be made by the court based on
the facts presented during the legal proceedings.
ISSUE IV: Whether Mr. Shah be held liable for provoking Mr. Shyam under section 153 of
IPC or not?

Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with provocation to cause a riot, but it's
important to note that this section typically pertains to larger public disturbances rather than
personal conflicts within a family or a small group of individuals. To establish liability under
Section 153 of the IPC, certain conditions related to the promotion of enmity between different
groups are required.

In the scenario described, Mr. Shah's actions, such as discussing the relationship between Ms.
Sirisha and Mr. Kiran with Mr. Shyam and warning Mr. Kiran, may not readily fit the criteria for
provocation under Section 153 of the IPC. This section is more commonly invoked in cases
involving actions that could incite or lead to broader social disturbances or riots.

However, Mr. Shah's actions could potentially be relevant in the context of other legal provisions
or charges, such as abetment, if it can be established that his actions directly contributed to the
assault or violence committed by Mr. Shyam, Mr. Sohail, and himself. The specific charges and
legal implications would depend on the facts, evidence, and legal arguments presented in the
case. It's crucial for the court to assess the details of the situation to determine liability
accurately.
 PRAYER

1. The State prays that the Supreme Court overturns the High Court’s decision regarding the conviction
of the accused for ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and instead convicts them for the
murder of Ms. Sirisha, based on the evidence presented.

2. The State requests that the Supreme Court uphold the conviction and sentencing of the accused for
the attempt to murder Mr. Kiran, as ruled by the High Court.

3. The State prays that the Supreme Court takes into account the excessive violence employed by the
accused, as well as the cumulative nature of the injuries inflicted on Ms. Sirisha, in determining their
liability for murder.

4. The State requests that the Supreme Court considers the intent behind the accused’s actions,
emphasizing that the accused’s response to a sudden emotional outburst should not excuse their
extreme and disproportionate use of force.

5. The State may also seek a reevaluation of the circumstances surrounding the loan repayment and Mr.
Sohail’s actions in the context of Sections 339 and 340 of the IPC (wrongful restraint and wrongful
confinement).

6. The State may further pray for a comprehensive examination of whether the accused’s actions were
premeditated, taking into account the prior discussions with Mr. Shyam and the warning given to Mr.
Kiran.

7. The State could request that the Supreme Court takes into consideration the evolving societal norms
and values, arguing that these actions cannot be justified in contemporary society.

All of Us Humbly Prayed

Counsel’s for the Appelant