IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Under Article 136 of The Constitution of Indica

In the matter of:

State of Kamil Appellant

Vs.
Piyush Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Page No.

1 List of Abbreviation 3

2 Index of Authorities 4

3 Statement of 5
Jurisdiction

4 Statement of Facts 6-7

5 Issues Raised 8

6 Summary of Pleadings 9-10

7 Pleadings Advanced 11-16

8 Prayer 17

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR – All India Reporter

BNS – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNSS – Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita
BSA- Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam
HC – High Court
SC – Supreme Court
SCC – Supreme Court Cases
PW – Prosecution Witness
DW – Defence Witness
FIR – First Information Report
Hon’ble – Honourable
v. – Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. Statutes and Constitutional Provision

1. Constitution of Indica

2. BNS

3. BNSS

4. BSA

B. Case Laws:

S. No. Case Law Citation

1 Pritam Singh v. The State (1950) AIR SC 169
2 State of Rajasthan v. Shera (2012) 1 SCC 602
Ram
3 State of U.P. v. Babu Ram (2000) 4 SCC 515
4 Laxman v. State of
Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710

5 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State (2006) 10 SCC 681

of Maharashtra
6 Surendra Mishra v. State of (2011) 11 SCC 49
Jharkhand
7 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai (1964) AIR SC 1563
Thakkar v. State of Gujarat
8 Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. (2002) 7 SCC 748
State of Maharashtra
9 Hari Singh Gond v. State of (2008) 16 SCC 109
Madhya Pradesh
10 Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2010) 10 SCC 582

C. Internet Sources:

1. National Institute of Mental Health – Understanding Bipolar Disorder: https://

www.nimh.nih.gov
2. Supreme Court of India Official Website – Case Laws & Judgments.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present appeal is being filed by the Appellant before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica
under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indica, invoking its special leave jurisdiction.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Piyush and Nikita, both residents of Funty in the State of Kamil, Democratic Republic of Indica,
were married on 15th February 2021. Their marital life was initially smooth, and they were blessed
with a daughter named Reet on 4th May 2023. However, following the birth of their child, Piyush's
behavior began to change significantly. He became aggressive, irritable, and violent without
provocation.

Concerned about Piyush’s behavioral changes, Nikita took him to Dr. Akash (DW1), a psychiatrist,
who diagnosed him with Bipolar Mood Disorder and prescribed medication. Despite medical
treatment, Piyush’s violent behavior persisted, leading to frequent conflicts between the couple.

On 2nd July 2024, loud sounds of a violent altercation were heard from Piyush’s residence. Jimmy
(PW3), their neighbor, entered the house and found Nikita lying unconscious in a pool of blood
with severe injuries. Jimmy also observed Piyush attempting to hide a 10-inch iron axe in the
garden. The police were called, and Nikita was immediately taken to the government hospital for
treatment by Dr. Abhi (PW2), who confirmed that her injuries were critical, with a fatal wound to
the lower abdomen. Piyush was arrested on the same day.

On 3rd July 2024, while receiving treatment, Nikita regained consciousness and provided a dying
declaration to Rahul (PW1), the SHO of Funty Police Station. In her statement, she blamed Piyush
for attacking her with the axe during a heated argument. Despite medical efforts, Nikita succumbed
to her injuries on 5th July 2024. Their daughter, Reet, was placed in a Government Child Care
Centre.

Based on the evidence, including Nikita’s dying declaration and the forensic report confirming
Piyush’s fingerprints on the axe, an FIR (No. 534/2024) was lodged against Piyush under Section
103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for the murder of his wife. During interrogation,
Piyush claimed that he had no recollection of the incident, asserting that he was unconscious during
the attack and only realized what had happened upon regaining awareness.

The Sessions Court, relying on the evidence and witness testimonies, convicted Piyush of
intentional murder under Section 103(1) of BNS on 30th September 2024, sentencing him to life
imprisonment and a fine. Aggrieved by the conviction, Piyush appealed to the High Court of Kamil
(Criminal Appeal No. 374/24), arguing that he was legally insane at the time of the act under
Section 22 of BNS.

6
On 1st December 2024, the High Court, accepting the defense of legal insanity, acquitted Piyush of
the murder charge, relying on medical evidence from Dr. Akash and corroborating testimony from
his brother, Milind (DW2), regarding his history of aggressive behavior.

The State of Kamil, dissatisfied with the acquittal, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of
Indica on 15th December 2024. The case, State of Kamil v. Piyush, is scheduled for final hearing
before the Divisional Bench on 7th January 2025.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the appeal filed by the State of Kamil before the Supreme Court of Indica is
maintainable or not.
2. Whether sufficient grounds of legal insanity exist to exonerate the accused, Piyush, from liability
for the murder of Nikita under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

8
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Maintainability of the Appeal

The Dying Declaration of the Deceased is Admissible and Sufficient for Conviction. The dying
declaration of Nikita, recorded by PW1 - Rahul (SHO, Funty Police Station), is clear, voluntary, and
directly implicates Piyush as the attacker. Under Section 32(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), a dying declaration is admissible and does not require corroboration if
found to be trustworthy, as held in Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 17 SCC 190.
Additionally, PW3 - Jimmy (Eyewitness) saw Piyush trying to hide the murder weapon, indicating a
guilty conscience. The forensic report further confirms Piyush’s involvement, as his fingerprints
were found on the axe used in the crime.

The High Court erred in disregarding the dying declaration based on the insanity defense. The
Supreme Court in Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562 held that a valid dying
declaration cannot be ignored unless proved to be unreliable. Since Nikita’s declaration was
recorded by a police officer in a fit mental state, it carries strong evidentiary value. The Sessions
Court rightly convicted Piyush based on the dying declaration, forensic evidence, and eyewitness
testimony, and the High Court’s decision to ignore these crucial pieces of evidence was erroneous.

II. No Sufficient Ground of Legal Insanity Exists to Exonerate the Accused

Piyush’s plea of legal insanity under Section 22 of the BNS fails, as he does not meet the legal
standard. The Supreme Court in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495 has
clarified that medical insanity is not equivalent to legal insanity. Piyush’s disorder was in its first
stage and was being medically managed, with no evidence suggesting he had lost total awareness of
his actions at the time of the crime.

His conduct—hiding the weapon, giving false statements, and attacking after an argument—
demonstrates intent and awareness, disproving the claim of legal insanity. In Dahyabhai
Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964) AIR SC 1563, the Supreme Court held that post-
crime actions like concealing evidence and misleading authorities negate a plea of insanity.

Under Section 105 of BSA, the burden of proving insanity lies on the accused, and a mere diagnosis
of a mental illness is insufficient, as reaffirmed in Hari Singh Gond v. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC
109. The High Court wrongly relied on the testimony of DW1 (Dr. Akash), which only established
medical insanity but failed to prove that Piyush was legally insane at the time of the crime. The
Supreme Court in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2010) 10 SCC 582 has held that courts must
consider behavioral evidence alongside medical reports.

9
Since Piyush’s actions before and after the crime indicate awareness, he fails the legal test of
insanity. The High Court’s acquittal was based on a misapplication of law and must be overturned.
The Sessions Court’s conviction should be reinstated, holding Piyush guilty of murder under
Section 103(1) of BNS.

10
 PLEADINGS ADVANCED

I. MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136

The present appeal has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indica, which grants the
Supreme Court special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, or order from a lower court.
The provision is meant to be invoked in cases where there is a substantial question of law, grave
injustice, or serious misinterpretation of the law by the lower courts.

1.1 Discretionary Nature of Article 136

Article 136 does not confer an automatic right of appeal but is an extraordinary jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, to be exercised only in cases where:

• The findings of the lower court are perverse or unreasonable.

• There has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
• A significant question of law is involved.
In Pritam Singh v. The State, (1950) AIR SC 169, the Supreme Court of India held that Article
136 should be exercised in rare cases where interference is necessary to prevent injustice.

1.2 Grave Miscarriage of Justice by the High Court

The Sessions Court convicted Piyush based on strong evidence, including:

• Nikita’s dying declaration, where she explicitly named Piyush as the assailant.
• Forensic evidence linking Piyush to the crime, with his fingerprints on the murder weapon
(axe).
• Testimony of eyewitness Jimmy (PW3), who saw Piyush hiding the axe.
The High Court reversed the conviction on weak grounds, accepting the defense of insanity despite
the fact that:

• Piyush attempted to conceal the weapon, an act that shows awareness and guilt.
• The burden of proving legal insanity was not discharged by the accused.
The Sessions Court correctly appreciated the evidence, and the High Court failed to provide
sufficient reasoning for overturning the conviction. Since the High Court’s judgment led to an
unjust acquittal, the Supreme Court’s interference under Article 136 is warranted.

In State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Supreme Court of India held that an
appellate court should interfere if an acquittal is based on arbitrary or perverse reasoning.

In the present case, the High Court ignored crucial evidence, including forensic reports, eyewitness
testimony, and the dying declaration. This wrongful acquittal justifies the State’s appeal.

2. Limited Interference with Acquittal – Exception in This Case

11
The Supreme Court generally does not interfere with findings of fact by lower courts unless there is
a gross error in law or appreciation of evidence.

In State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, (2000) 4 SCC 515, the Supreme Court ruled that if the Sessions
Court’s conviction is based on strong evidence, and the High Court’s acquittal is without sound
reasoning, the Supreme Court should interfere.

The High Court’s acquittal in this case is based on an incorrect application of the insanity defense
under Section 22 of the BNS. Since Nikita’s dying declaration is direct and unchallenged evidence,
the High Court should not have acquitted the accused.

Thus, the State’s appeal against the acquittal is justified and maintainable under BNSS.

3. Dying Declaration as a Strong Ground for Appeal

Dying declarations are substantive evidence and require no further corroboration if they are
voluntary and made in a fit mental condition.

In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710, the Supreme Court held that a dying
declaration is reliable evidence if the person giving it was mentally fit and conscious. Medical
certification of mental fitness strengthens its credibility.

In this case, PW2 (Dr. Abhi) confirmed that Nikita was mentally fit when she made the dying
declaration. Since dying declarations hold strong evidentiary value, the High Court’s decision to
ignore this crucial piece of evidence is an error in law, justifying Supreme Court intervention.

4. Forensic and Circumstantial Evidence Warrant Supreme Court’s Interference

• Piyush’s fingerprints were found on the axe used in the attack.

• Eyewitness Jimmy (PW3) saw him trying to hide the weapon.
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Supreme Court
held that if an accused fails to explain strong circumstantial evidence, a presumption of guilt can be
made.

Piyush claimed he was unconscious, yet he attempted to hide the murder weapon. The High Court
failed to appreciate this key forensic and circumstantial evidence. This wrongful acquittal makes the
appeal maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. Precedents Supporting Supreme Court’s Intervention in Acquittals

• State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 – The Supreme Court can interfere in
an acquittal if the findings are perverse or against the weight of evidence.

• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710 – A dying declaration is strong

evidence and needs no further corroboration if given in a fit state.

• Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 – If an accused fails
to explain strong circumstantial evidence, a presumption of guilt arises.

12
 • State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, (2000) 4 SCC 515 – The Supreme Court can interfere in an
acquittal if the High Court has ignored strong evidence.

6. Conclusion on Maintainability

• The appeal is maintainable under Article 136, as the High Court’s misinterpretation of the
insanity defense under Section 22 of BNS has led to a gross miscarriage of justice.
• The State has a statutory right under Section 417 of BNSS to appeal against an acquittal when
there is misapplication of law.
• The dying declaration and forensic evidence establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the
High Court ignored these crucial pieces of evidence.
The Supreme Court must intervene to ensure justice for Nikita and correct the High Court’s
erroneous decision.

13
II. WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO
EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

1. The Legal Standard for Insanity under Section 22 of BNS

The accused Piyush has taken the defense of legal insanity under Section 22 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which corresponds to Section 84 of the IPC. Section 22 states:

"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what
was either wrong or contrary to law."

1.1 Essential Ingredients for the Defense of Insanity

To successfully invoke the defense under Section 22 of BNS, the accused must prove that:

• He was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the crime.

• Due to this disorder, he was incapable of understanding the nature of the act.
• He was unable to distinguish between right and wrong.
The burden of proof to establish insanity lies on the accused (Piyush), not on the prosecution.

In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495, the Supreme Court held that:

• Medical insanity is not the same as legal insanity.

• Merely being diagnosed with a mental illness does not automatically absolve criminal liability.
• The accused must prove that at the precise moment of the crime, he was incapable of
understanding his actions.
2. Distinction Between Medical and Legal Insanity

• Medical Insanity refers to a person suffering from a diagnosed mental disorder but still being
capable of reasoning and understanding his actions.
• Legal Insanity, as per Section 22 of BNS, requires that the person was totally unaware of the
nature of his act at the time of committing the offense.
2.1 Evidence Suggests Piyush Was Not Legally Insane at the Time of the Crime

The High Court wrongly acquitted Piyush on the ground of insanity without properly applying the
distinction between medical and legal insanity.

Piyush was undergoing treatment for Bipolar Mood Disorder, but:

• The disorder was in its first stage and was being medically managed.
• The psychiatrist never stated that Piyush had lost total awareness of his actions.
The acts of Piyush indicate full awareness and guilty conscience:

• He hid the murder weapon, which implies he knew his actions were wrong.
• He gave inconsistent statements to the police, showing an attempt to avoid liability.
• He attacked Nikita after an argument, indicating motive and intention.

14
In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748, the Supreme Court
clarified:

• The mere fact that an accused was suffering from mental illness does not mean he was legally
insane at the time of the crime.
• The crucial test is whether the accused understood the nature and consequences of his act at
that moment.
Thus, Piyush’s actions prove he was conscious and aware, failing the test of legal insanity.

3. Dying Declaration and Eyewitness Evidence Contradict Insanity Defense

• Nikita’s dying declaration (PW1- Rahul, SHO, Funty Police Station) clearly stated that
Piyush attacked her violently with an axe after an argument.
• PW3- Jimmy (Eyewitness) saw Piyush trying to hide the axe, which is not an act of an insane
person but of someone who understands guilt.
• Forensic report confirmed Piyush’s fingerprints on the axe, reinforcing his active
participation in the crime.
In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (1964) AIR SC 1563, the Supreme
Court held that:

• If an accused shows awareness before, during, or after the act, the insanity defense fails.
• Concealing evidence, running away, or misleading authorities suggests criminal intent rather
than insanity.
Since Piyush exhibited post-crime awareness, he cannot claim legal insanity.

4. Burden of Proof Lies on the Accused

Under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (Corresponding to Section
105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), the burden of proving the insanity defense lies on the
accused.

In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109, the Supreme Court ruled
that:

• A mere plea of insanity is not sufficient; there must be strong medical evidence and conduct
proving the accused was incapable of knowing the act’s nature.
Piyush failed to provide conclusive medical proof that he was legally insane at the time of the
offense.

5. High Court’s Error in Acquitting Piyush

The Sessions Court rightly convicted Piyush, recognizing that:

• The defense of insanity was not conclusively proven.

• The evidence against Piyush was overwhelming.
• The High Court wrongly relied only on DW1 (Dr. Akash’s testimony), which merely
established medical insanity but did not prove legal insanity.
In Anandrao Bhosale (supra) and Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 582, the
Supreme Court held that:

15
 • Courts should not rely on medical evidence alone to decide insanity pleas.
• Behavioral evidence and circumstances must also be considered.
Since Piyush’s actions before and after the crime indicate awareness, the High Court wrongly
acquitted him based on an incorrect application of the insanity defense.

6. Precedents Rejecting Insanity Defense When Awareness Is Shown

• Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495 – Legal insanity requires the
accused to be unaware of the nature of his act at the time of the crime.
• Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, (1964) AIR SC 1563 – Post-crime
conduct (hiding weapons, misleading police) disproves insanity.
• Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748 – Medical insanity
is not a defense unless it results in complete unawareness of the act.
• Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109 – The burden of proving
legal insanity is on the accused.
• Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2010) 10 SCC 582 – Courts should not rely on medical
evidence alone; behavioral and circumstantial evidence must also be considered.

Piyush failed to establish legal insanity under Section 22 of BNS.

His actions before and after the crime indicate awareness, proving he was not legally insane at the
time of committing the act. The dying declaration, forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony
contradict his insanity plea. The High Court’s acquittal was based on a misapplication of the law
and must be overturned. The Sessions Court’s conviction should be reinstated, holding Piyush
guilty of murder under Section 103(1) of BNS.
Therefore, the appeal must be allowed, and Piyush should be convicted for murder.

16
 PRAYER
In light of the aforementioned arguments and legal precedents, the Appellant humbly prays before
this Hon’ble Court to:

1. Set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which
erroneously granted the defense of legal insanity to the Respondent (Piyush) without proper
consideration of the legal principles.

2. Reinstate the conviction of the Respondent under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)for the offense of murder, as originally held by the Learned Sessions
Court.

3. Hold that the defense of legal insanity is not applicable in the present case, as the
Respondent was aware of the nature and consequences of his actions before, during, and after
the crime.

4. Impose an appropriate sentence on the Respondent in accordance with law, considering the
gravity of the offense and the overwhelming evidence against him.

5. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the Appellant shall forever be duty-bound.

(APPELLANT’S COUNSEL)

17