PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PUNJAB AND HARYANA

IN A PETITITON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

CRL.M.C. No -____________ OF 2024

KANTA…………….………………………………. DEFENDANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA…………………..…...……………..…..…PROSECUTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

PALAK 279/20 18815

SECTION E
9TH SEMESTER
CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................3

STATUTES .................................................................................................................................3

CASES ........................................................................................................................................3

BOOKS .......................................................................................................................................4

LEGAL DICTIONARIES .......................................................................................................... 5

JOURNALS ................................................................................................................................ 6
..
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 7

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 8

ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 12

ISSUE : WHETHER THE CHARGE OF 302 MAINTAINABLE. ......................................... 12

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................... 28
 TABLE OF Expansions
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations
§ Section

¶ Paragraph

A.C. Appellate Cases

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Ch. Chapter
Ed. Edition
H.C High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ld. Learned
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
Pvt Private
r. Rules
r/w Read with
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
U.O.I. Union of India
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES Sr. No. Name
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Act
1. No. 2 of 1974.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Act

1. No. 1 of 1872.

The Indian Penal Code, Act No. 45

1. of 1860
LIST OF RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. State of U.P. v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2190

2. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1

3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 3 SCC 434

4. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

5. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 112

6. Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2014) 3 SCC 521

7. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 1

8. K. K. Verma v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1954 SC 302

BOOKS Sr. No. Name
Batuk Lal, “Commentary on the Indian
1. Penal Code, 1860”, Ed. R. P. Kataria and S.
K. A. Naqvi, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 300),
(Orient Publishing Company, 1st Edn. New
Delhi) (2006-07).
Dr. Hari Singh Gour, “The Penal Law of
1. India”, Vol-I, (Section 1 to 120), (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th Edn.)
(2006).
Field's “Commentary on Law of Evidence”,
1. Ed Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Vol-I & II, (Delhi
Law House, 12th Edn.) (2006).
Halsbury's Laws of India, Vol-32,
1. “Criminal Procedure - I & II”, (Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, New Delhi) (2007).
K. D. Gaur, “Commentary on Indian Penal
1. Code”, (Universal Law Publishing

Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi) (2006).

1.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE DEFENDANT HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HONORABLE HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BY INVOKING THE INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH
COURT UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 AS IN FOR
QUASHING OF FIR PROCEEDINGS BEING INITITAED BY THE PROSECUTION.
THE PRESENT PETITION SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND
ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
1. Kavita and Amit both married in the year 2020.

2. Kavita gave birth to three children, who all were girls.

3. Mother in law of Kavita namely Kanta was dissatisfied with Kavita because she was not able to
bear a male child.

4. Both of them often get involved in heated arguments and did not shared cordial relations with
each other in the household.

5. One day about 7 am Kavita along with her youngest daughter Minaxi had gone to fetch water.

6. While Kavita was rertuning with the water pot on her head and carrying Minaxi with the other
hand, was hit from behind and a burning wick made of rags was thrown upon. This set fire to the
clothes of Kavita.

7. In haste, Kavita bright down her minor daughter whom she was carrying and managed to reach
her house with the burn injuries.

8. Kavita was then taken to Government hospital by her mother in law where Kavita was examined
and it was found that she has sustained more than 80% burn injuries. She was admitted in the
hospital for the treatment of her burn injuries.

9. The incident came into the knowledge of the police officials who reached the hospital and
inquired about the matter.

10. Kavita narrated the morning incident to the police officials and said that she heard the sounds of
the bangles when the incident took place but she could not reciginze any person.

11. During the course of treatment kavita died and on the basis of the statement of Kavita the police
set into motion to look into the matter.

12. A formal inquiry by the police officials was conducted wherein it was found that the right hand
of the mother in law of Kavita had fresh burn injuries and when asked by the officials about the
burn injuries she could not give any satisfactory answer.

13. The police on the basis of such suspicion of the fresh burn injury registered a case of murder
against Kanta, the mother in law of Kavita.

The case is set for arguments

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE : WHETHER THE CHARGE OF 302 MAINTAINABLE

The charge under Section 302 against Kanta hinges on establishing intent to kill, premeditation, and
a motive to commit murder. Given the facts of the case, particularly the nature of Kavita's dying
declaration and the circumstances surrounding the incident, there is a strong basis as why the
charges cannot be attracted in the present matter. The prosecution has not provided sufficient
evidence to support the allegations against Kanta. The lack of direct evidence, unsubstantiated
motive, inconclusive circumstantial evidence, and the fundamental principle of presumption of
innocence underscore the necessity for acquittal.
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE : WHETHER THE CHARGE OF 302 MAINTAINABLE.

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE : WHETHER THE CHARGE OF 302 MAINTAINABLE.
It is most humbly submitted to the hon’able court that as per the factual matrix of the case
deceased Kavita who was married to Amit in 2020 and gave birth to three children all of whom
were girls from such marriage. Her mother in law namely, Kanta was not happy with her that she
could not bear a male child and often fought over this matter and did not shared a cordial
relationship with each other. One day around 7 am when she was returning back home from
fetching water along with her youngest daughter Minaxi, was hit from behind and a burning wick
was thrown upon her and eventually her clothes caught fire and suffered burn injuries. Her mother
in law took her to government hospital and doctors report said she sustained 80 % injuries. She was
admitted to the same hospital for treatment of er burn injuries. Unfortunately, Kavita died during
the course of treatment. In formal inquiry conducted by Police officials where Kavita stated she
heard sound of bangles when the incident took place but she could not recognize anyone. Further,
it was also found that mother in law on her right hand had fresh burn injuries. On the basis of
suspicion, mother in law, Kanta is charged for murder of her daughter in law under 302 IPC.

Prosecution leads the case with charge under Section 302 IPC i.e. charge of murder was made in FIR
which states that:

“300. Murder.— Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

(Secondly)— 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—

(Thirdly)— If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

(Fourthly)— 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.”

For constitution of an offence under section 302 IPC, the injuries as well as the intention ought to be
looked into. However, intention or motive is a matter of trial and has to be deciphered during the trial
proceedings as such. A charge is framed when the factual ingredients point towards commission of
offense. The Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is enough ground to
presume that the accused has committed the offence. 1
1 Kaushalya Devi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3511.
The defense of Kanta rests on the fundamental principles of criminal law, primarily the presumption of
innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The following arguments will be
substantiated with relevant case laws to demonstrate the inadequacies in the prosecution's case.

I. LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE

1. Failure to Identify the Perpetrator :

o Kavita, during her statement to the police, explicitly stated that she could not recognize
the individual who attacked her. This statement contradicts the charges put on kanta.
Further, not clearly establishing any fact that shows who hit her from behind and threw
burning wick upon her that ultimately caught fire to her clothes. This failure to identify
the accused is critical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the failure of a witness to
identify the accused, especially in a case of serious allegations, leads to reasonable
doubt about the accused's guilt. State of U.P. v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2190,
o In the present case, kavita in her statement to police officials said that she could not
recognize the person who threw the burning wick upon her. It creates a reasonable
doubt in the mind of the court. Therefore, Kanta can not be held responsible for such an
act of throwing burning wick upon kavita. Furthermore, according to the criminal
jurisprudence it is the prosecution that is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any
reasonable doubt but in the present case prosecution has failed to establish the identity
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that it was only kanta who hit Kavita from
behind and threw the burning wick upon her.

2. Absence of Eyewitness Testimony :

o The prosecution relies heavily only on circumstantial evidence and tries to make Kanta
liable for the act in which the identity of the accused is not even clearly esthablised.
Prosecution lacks direct eyewitness that accounts Kanta is liable for such a criminal act
and to be held for the crime. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that in the absence
of eyewitness testimony, the prosecution’s case becomes weaker, particularly in serious
offenses. In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1

o Therefore, in the present case the prosecution fails to prove the link of Kanta by direct
evidence of eyewitness testimony that makes her liable for a serious offence. Solely
relying on circumstantial evidence and without any corroborating evidence to the same,
could not make Kanta liable for such serious offence.
II. LACK OF MOTIVE

1. Speculative Motive :

o The prosecution alleges that Kanta was dissatisfied with Kavita's failure to bear a male
child, suggesting this as a motive to murder Kavita. However, this claim is speculative
and lacks substantive evidence. Moreover, there are two important elements of a crime
in order to make anyperson liable :

i. Actus Reus – means act that is the result of human conduct plus reus that
means any act that is forbidden by law
ii. Mens rea – reflects the guilty intention of a person to do any act forbidden
by law.

Bith the elements of crime are based on the Latin Maxim i.e. Actus Non Facit Reum
Nisi Men Sit Rea. The maxim means that act itself cannot be guilty unless done with
the guilty mind. Motive is not an element of crime at all and therefore it is not be
considered by the court.

o In the present case, the elements of the crime are not substantially proved. Firstly, the
prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused properly as there is no
substantial evidence that it was only Kanta that performed such criminal act. Secondly,
the dissatisfaction of kanta with Kavita could not bear male child be equated with her
guilty intention to murder her. , the Supreme Court emphasized that mere
dissatisfaction does not equate to a motive for murder unless supported by concrete
evidence (State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 3 SCC 434). The prosecution needs
to prove the two important elements of crime together in order to make kanta liable for
the offence of murder and that too beyond any reasonable doubt to the court. The
prosecution needs to prove in a way that destroys any room for doubt in the mind of
the court. Therefore, considering the factual matrix the prosecution failed to both the
elements of crime together and hence kanta is not liable for the offence of murder of
kavita.

2. Family Dynamics and Context :

Familial tensions are common, but the transition from disagreement to murder is significant and
requires clear evidence. There may be alternatives in family relationship but considering the same as
their intention to commit a serious offence like murder is not appropriate. The Supreme Court ruled that
discord in familial relationships does not inherently suggest the capability for committing murder
without substantial evidence. (Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622)
III. INCONCLUSIVE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

1. Kanta's Burn Injuries :

o The presence of burn injuries on Kanta’s right hand raises serious questions about her
involvement. If she had set Kavita on fire, she would likely have sustained more
significant injuries than merely small injury. She might have got the burn injury while
she was doing the household chores. There is not significant prove by the prosecution
that kanta got the burn injuries only when if she really had pot on fire kavita. Moreover,
she might have got the burn injuries while she was saving kavita as it was only kanta
that took kavita to government hospital for her treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
noted that the circumstances surrounding the accused's actions must be consistent with
guilt and must exclude reasonable possibilities of innocence. ( K. M. Nanavati v. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 112,) . In the present situation, the prosecution is unable
to establish a clear chain of events by their circumstantial evidences that are
consistently pointing towards the guilt of Kanta and there a clear representation of
innocence of kanta as she took her to hospital which she would have not gone at the
first place.

2. Lack of Evidence of Premeditation

o The nature of the attack, described as sudden and impulsive, indicates that it was not
premeditated, which is a requirement for a murder charge. There must be any direct or
any circumstantial evidence by the prosecution that Kanta has preplanned the murder
of Kavita. There is not factual proposition that points premeditation of Kanta to cimmit
murder of kavita. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that for a conviction of murder,
evidence must demonstrate clear premeditation, which the prosecution has failed to
establish. (Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2014) 3 SCC 521)

IV. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

1. Fundamental Right to Fair Trial

o The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 20(3) of

the Indian Constitution. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof in
a criminal case lies with the prosecution, which must establish guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the accused is
entitled to the benefit of the doubt if the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof.
(State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 1).

o In the present case, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the not
properly identified accused but still prosecuted under murder charges. The benefit of
doubt is majorly inclined towards Kanta as no factual evidence by the prosecution is
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 2. Right Against Self-Incrimination

o The accused has the right to remain silent against the incrimination questions asked by
the police officials. Accused cannot be compelled to provide evidence against herself,
and make himself liable for any offence for which he may be tried. The protection
against such incriminating question is provided to the accused and is guaranteed by
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that any evidence
obtained in violation of this right would be inadmissible in court. (K. K. Verma v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1954 SC 302)

o Therefore, from the factual matrix when Kanta was asked about her burn injuries to
which she could not answer properly may create a doubt in mind of the court but such a
question asked is an incriminating queston to the accused asking that if she got this burn
injury while she was about throw the burning wick upon Kavita.

V. CONCLUSION

In present case there was no intention to kill but a sense of mere dissatisfaction by Kanta from Kavita
is clear from facts of the case. There is no clear evidence from which it can be established that
charges of murder can be raised. As a matter of fact, after marriage between Amit and Kavita had
three girls but were unable to bear a male child which the main cause of dissatisfaction between
Amit’s mother Kanta and Kavita. To be concreate there were no cordial relationship between Kavita
and Kanta but it cannot be established that it was premediated to commit an offence of murder which
is critical factor in establishing murder . The prosecution must prove that the accused planned the act.
It is contended that the actions if taken by Kanta were impulsive, stemming from emotional distress
and a mere sense of dissatisfaction rather than a premeditated scheme.

The central element of murder is the intention to kill which is clearly missing in present case. The
prosecution must demonstrate that both the elements of crime are clearly proved together beyond
reasonable doubt that establish the guilt of the accused mother of Amit. Kavita's dying declaration
mentions that she was unable to recognize the exact person who is liable to put her on fire that
suggests and is contented failure of the prosecution of establish the identity of the accused. If she had
any thought that her mother-in-law had ill motive to kill her, she would not have hesitated in hospital
to name her as her culprit but she narrated it as contrary to mother in law . The absence of any direct
statements from Kavita blaming her mother-in-law indicates a lack of intent. Dying declaration, is
relevant and admissible in evidence provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental
condition. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of direct accusations in a dying
declaration can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding intent.

The maxim, Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire is also referred to as be a dying declaration. As
per this maxim, a man will not meet his creator with a lie in his mouth. It is the philosophy in law
underlying admittance in evidence of dying declaration. A dying declaration given by a person on the
verge of his demise has a certain sanctity, because, at the sacred moment, a person is most reluctant
to make some incorrect claims. The aura of imminent mortality is by itself an assurance of the
validity of the argument rendered by the deceased regarding the reasons or conditions contributing to
his demise. If considered to be true, a dying declaration will form the foundation of conviction. A
Court of Evidence is not disqualified for seeking guilt from ruling upon an uncorroborated dying
argument. As a piece of proof, a dying statement sits on the same basis as every other piece of
evidence. There can be a possibility which similarly arised in the case of Manisha Gupta vs State5 . it
was kanta who brought Kavita to the government hospital for her treatment of the burn injuries. If
Kanta had any intention of killing Kavita she would have left Kavita at her own and would have
helped her for treating the burn injuries. Unfortunately, Kavita died after her statement that she did
not know who put her on fire.

To conclude the charge under Section 302 against Kanta on establishing intent to kill, premeditation,
and a motive to commit murder are not substantial in establishing the guilt. Given the facts of the
case, particularly the nature of Kavita's dying declaration and the circumstances surrounding the
incident, there is a strong basis as why the charges cannot be attracted in the present matter.
Therefore, the learned Trial Court should discharge them for offences under section 302 IPC as the
prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Kanta. The lack
of direct evidence, unsubstantiated motive, inconclusive circumstantial evidence, and the
fundamental principle of presumption of innocence underscore the necessity for acquittal.

In support of his submissions the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in cases : (1) B.N.
Kavatakar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 1994 SCC (Cri.) 579, (2) Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC
(Cri.) 86 and (3) Manik Malakar v. State of Assam, 1976 Cri.LJ 1921.

Whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide
not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in
three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done
an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the
act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the
accused amounts to 'culpable homicide' as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima
facie found in the affirmative, the third stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of Indian
Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved
by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of
'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative, the offence would be
'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first or the second part of Section
304 depending respectively on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable.

In B. Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 2363, it was held that when one of the
accused poured kerosene on the boy after which the appellant lighted a match and set fire to his
clothes, the intention was to cause death of that boy and there was no doubt about that intention. On
the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the intention of the
respondent in setting on fire the clothes of the deceased was to cause her death, and therefore, the
offence committed by the respondent would squarely fall within the first clause of See. 300 of Indian
Penal Code
 PRAYER
Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that
The Honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana:

1. Quash the FIR in the present case against Kanta.

2. Declare that Kanta is not guilty in any of the said charges stated in FIR.

3. Impose costs onto the prosecution was filing vexatious proceeding against the grieving deceased
husband (Amit).

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty
Bound Forever Pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Defendan