IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BIJOYNAGAR

CRIMINAL APPELANT JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF:

CASE NO........................../2024

MR. VICKY......................................................................................................APPELANT

Vs

STATE OF INDIANA.................................................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
5 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6-7
6 ISSUES PRESENTED 8
8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9-12
9 PRAYER 13

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Art. Article

CrPc Code Of Criminal Procedure

HC High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

ORS. Others

v. Versus

& And

Page | 3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

 DURGA DAS BASU, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (3rd ed. Kamal Law House
Kolkata 2011).

 G.S. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA. (Atish Chakraborty, 17th ed. 2022).

 J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA. (Surendra Sahal Srivastava, 60th ed.
2023).

 KAILASH RAI, COSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA. (11TH ed. 2017).

 M.P JAIN, INDIAN COSTITUTIONAL LAW

DICTIONARIES REFERRED
 Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 2001).
 Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 2009).

STATUTES REFERRED
 The Indian Penal Code,1860 (India)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page | 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the respondent, hereby humbly submit before the Hon'ble High Court
under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where any person convicted on a trial
held by any session judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment
for more than 7 years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page | 5

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That the victim Shatabdi had recently completed her post -graduation in law and secured a
job as an assistant professor at the Bijoynagar Law College.
2. That the accused Vicky is an engineering graduate but failed to get a job despite his best
efforts.
3. That the accused's parents regularly taunted and rebuked the accused due to his inability to
build a successful professional career.
4. That the victim had rejected a proposal in January 2017 from the accused parents to marry
the accused and settle with him.
5. That according to the police investigation, the professional frustration and the constant
rebuke from the accused's parents and the refusal to marry the accused were the major
reasons which could have led to the act of vengeance by the accused.
6. That on 21st of November 2017 the victim was to travel from Bijoynagar to Nagpur in order
to attend an international seminar to be held the next day. That the victim was to travel by
bus from the Bijoynagar Bus Terminus, scheduled to depart at 9:45 PM.
7. That the victim had posted on her social media platform and the accused allegedly arrived
at the same Bus Terminus after he had seen her post.
8. That according to the police investigation the accused allegedly threw acid on the victim’s
face and ran away from the bus terminus.
9. That the entire incident was caught on CCTV camera at the Bus Terminus however the
CCTV did not capture the face of the perpetrator since he had covered his face with a piece
of cloth.
10. That the victim was taken to the local hospital and the examining doctor declared that she
had suffered grievous injuries to her face and body on account of the acid attack and
succumbed to the injuries on the 22nd November 2017 without any interaction with the
police.
11. That during the police investigation the parents of the victims revealed that the acid could
be thrown by the accused due to the history between the victim and the accused, after
which an FIR was lodged by the police under section 302 and 326B of the Indian Penal
Code and was arrested subsequently at his house.
12. That the police found an empty bottle of concentrated sulphuric acid which the accused
claimed was used for domestic purposes that he bought from local store. There were also
some scars on the accused's hand which were examined by the medical examiner and
conclude that they were from accidental splashes of acid.

Page | 6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
13. That the accused was put on trial before the Trial High Court of Bijoynagar and convicted
for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 326B of the Indianan Penal Code 1860
and was sentenced to life imprisonment for both the offences which the accused was to
serve concurrently.
14. That the accused appealed before the High Count of Bijoynagar seeking acquittal on the
ground that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. That the state also filed an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court and demanded that
the death penalty on the ground that the case fulfilled the requisite conditions for being
deemed ' rarest of the rarest'.

Page | 7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ISSUES PRESENTED

THE ISSUES SET FORTH IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE:

 Whether the judgement of the Trial Court punishing the accused W/S 302 and 326 B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is correct?

 Whether the case fulfils the requisites elements necessary for deeming
it rarest of the rare' thereby warranting the death penally?

Page | 8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 [ISSUE I]: Whether the judgement of the Trial Court punishing the accused W/S 302 and 326 B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is correct

1.1 The counsel for the appellant humbly submits to this Hon’ble Court that, the judgment made by
the Hon’ble Court Trial in the case of State v. Vicky is justified under the law and in facts. The,
appellant in this instant case, is sentenced for life U/S 302 and 326B of the Indianan Penal Code,
1860 upon reasonable doubt"

1.2 The judgement for which the accused has been convicted U/S 302 and 326B of the IPC is
justifiable as the motive, circumstances and evidence proved that the accused is guilty and every man
with proper morality would consider it to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

1.3 Upon seeking the permission, the council would like to put light on the important facts of the case:
 That though the accused was not seen at the premise of the scene where the incident occurred,
the victim did not have any enemy nor the like who would render harm upon her.
 That the statement of the parents of the victim that the acid could have been thrown by
accused is enough evidence that the victim is a person having no enemy besides the accused
who would intentionally do such inhumane thing.
 That an empty bottle of concentrated sulphuric acid was found at the accused's home.
 That the accused has never bought concentrated sulphuric acid for domestic use.
 That a record of him buying the acid is not maintained by the store in which he bought.
 That the provisions of the Poison (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2014 is not followed by the
accused and the store. {Poison (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2014 made by Central Gov as a
result of Decision of Supreme Court made in the case of Laxmi v. Union of India and Others,
(2012(9) SCALE 291)}
 That as per the aforementioned rule made by the state of Indiana the accused nor the store do
not possess a license to possess or sell concentrated sulphuric acid.

Page | 9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1.4 Therefore, the above stated facts advocates that the judgement of the Hon'ble Trial Court is
accurate and the punishment given is appropriate keeping in mind the nature of the crime
committed by the accused.

1.5 Moreover, the Trial Court not only took into account only the horrifying nature of the crime
but also the circumstances and reasons that could have led to the commission of such crime by
the accused, like the continuous rebuke by his parents for being unable to secure a job and being
refused by the victim.

Page | 10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 [ISSUE II]: Whether the case fulfils the requisites elements necessary for deeming it rarest of
the rare' thereby warranting the death penally?

2.1 The counsel for the respondent humbly submits to the Hon’ble Court that this instant case does fall
under the purview of the cases for rarest of the rare and death penalty upon such case where the evidences
and facts recorded or presented clearly depicts that the appellant is guilty without any reasonable grounds for
doubts.

2.2 Death sentence and its implementation is always final, preventing an individual from the opportunities
to profit from new evidence or legislation that may lead to a conviction being overturned or a dead
sentenced being overturned. When stacks are as high as life and death we must hold our judicial system to
the same high standard.

2.3 In this instant case where there is a lack of evidence and witnesses there is always scope for no
witness and evidence to come up with the help of proper investigation and for the examination. Moreover,
death penalty is in contradiction to Article-21 of the Constitution of India which grants the Right to life and
personal liberty, a fundamental right which no one shall be deprived of such rights, although it is a
discretionary power of the trial court to pronounce a case as a rarest of a rare or not.

2.4 I would like to remind the Hon’ble High Court of Bijoynagar, the warning given by the Apex Court in
the case of Pappu V. the State of Uttar Pradesh that judges should not be persuaded to impose the death
penalty only because of the horrifying nature of the crime and its negative effects on society.

2.5 Moreover, the accused whom the crimes he is convicted of is of insufficient in evidence is a law-
abiding citizen without any prior criminal record, Death penalty is not warranted nor the prior decision of
the Hon’ble Trial Court, if there was sufficient evidence and he is guilty and proven beyond any
reasonable doubt, the accused still have the right to remission under section 432 of CrPC and also he is
deemed to be reformable.

2.6 There is no sufficient evidence and cannot be proved that the accused is not reformable.

2.7 The Apex Court in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab laid down that life
imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.

Page | 11

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2.8 Certain guidelines were laid down in the case of Bachan Singh:

 Death penalty can be awarded only in the gravest cases of extreme culpability.

 The circumstances of the offender along with the circumstances of the crime have to be taken
into consideration.

 When a sentence of life imprisonment seems inadequate having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime, only then a death sentence may be awarded.

2.9 Cases of acid throwing is not to be deemed as rarest of the rare as there are at least 200 cases of acid
throwing in which the majority are of more heinous than this case, in this case the accused’s
conviction by High Court is also a question and is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and hence
Capital punishment is not warranted in this case.

2.10 In fact in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, the three-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court considered the Constitution Bench decision Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and came
to hold that where there is no proof of extreme culpability, the extreme penalty need not be given. The
Supreme Court also further observed that the extreme penalty of death may be given only in the rarest
of rare cases where aggravating circumstances are such that the extreme penalty meets the
ends of justice.

The council on behalf of the appellant pray before this court for the end of wrongful conviction
as well as wrongful termination of precious human life under the purview of rarest of the rare.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE Page | 12

RESPONDENT
 PRAYER

THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED,

REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT PUNISHING THE ACCUSED U/S 302
AND 326B IS NOT VALID IN LAW AND IN FACT.

2. THAT THE CASE DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUISITE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO
BE DEEMED AS ‘RAREST OF THE RARE’ THEREBY WARRANTING THE DEATH
PENALTY.

3. AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND FOR
THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-Sd

Counsel on Behalf of Respondent