SIVA RAJA.

CLINICAL COURSE – IV

INTRA-COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT - 2024

----

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP No. ... / 2024

In The Matter Of

State of Taxila ... (Appellant)

--vs--

Virbahadur ... (Respondent)

APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 Table of content

S.No Particulars Page

No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. INDEX OF STATUTES
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. STATEMENT OF FACT
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
8. ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1. Whether the high court had made an erroneous
decision or not?
 Crime
 Act to be prohibited by law
 Legal provision for respondent’s act
 Present case falls under section 300 clauses 4
 Use of dangerous weapon
 That the offence committed was heinous
offences
 Principle of mistake of fact
 There are major discrepancies in defence
version
 credibility of Dushyant singh is Questionable
 Jishnu and Jitenter are credible witnesses

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 2. Whether the act of the respondent can be protected
under the section 79 of IPC
 good faith not established
 Duty to due care.
 Question of good faith
3. Whether the charges levelled against VIRBahadur are
maintainable or not?
 Actus reus of murder is proven
 Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant
 Belief must be reasonable
 Blind simple belief is not enough
 Accused cannot avail the right of private
defence
 Free from the stronghold of superstition
9. PRAYER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. ABBREVIATION FULLFORM

1. V. Versus
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. SC Supreme Court
4. Ors. Others
5. CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
6. Anr. Another
7. COS Court of Session
8. Sec Section
9. Hon’ble Honourable
10. No. Number
11. HC High Court
12. COI Constitution of India
13. & And
14. PW Petitioner Witness
15. SLP Special Leave Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.No. Cases
1. Basdev V The state of pepsu 1956 AIR 488, 1956 SCR 363.
2. Thangaiya V State Of Tamilnadu 2005 CriLJ 684 JT 2004 (10) SC
421 2004 (10) SCALE 319 (2005)9 SCC 650
3. Jagtar singh V State of Punjab 1983
4. Kapur Singh V State of Pepsu 1956 AIR 1956 SC 654.
5. State of Madya Pradesh V Ram Prasad 1968 AIR 881, 1968 SCR
(2) 522.
6. Prabhu V state of MP AIR 1991 SC 1069 1991 CriLJ 1373, 1991
supp (2) SCC 725.
7. Mathai V State Of Kerala (2005) CriLJ 898 (SC)
8. Rambaran Mahton V The State AIR 1958 pat 452, 1958 (6) BLJR88,
1958 CriLJ 1077
9. Ram swaroop V State Of Rajasthan 2005 SCC (Cri) 161.
10. Bai Ramilaban V State Of Gujarat 1990
11. The King V Tustipada Mandal AIR 1951, Ori 284
12. R V Prince (1683) 2 ch-c-154
13. State Of Orissa V Bhagaban Barik 1987 AIR 1265, 1987 SCR (2)
785
14. Shareef Ahmed V CWT (1979) 117 ITR 35 (ALL)
15. Mohammed Ali V Sriram Swarup AIR 1965 ALL 161, 1965 CriLJ
413
16. R V Cunningham (1957) 3 WLR 76.
17. Harbhajan singh V State Of Punjab 1966 AIR 97, 1965 SCR (3)
235
18. R V Kimsey 1996
19. Ratanlal V State Of MP 1971 AIR 778 1971 SCR (3) 251 1970 SCC
(3) 533 ACT
20. Vijayee singh and Ors V State 1990 AIR 1459, 1990 SCR (2) 573
21 Bhopal Witch - Hunt case 2004

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 INDEX OF STATUTES

S.NO STATUTES
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. The General Clause Act, 1897

S.No WEBSITES
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.indiankanoon.com
4. www.casemine.com
5. www.legalbites.com
6. www.barandbench.com
7. www.pathlegal.com
8. www.lawbhoomi.com
9. www.superlawyer.com
10. www.ipleaders.com

S.NO BOOKS
1. K.D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code 5th edition 2017, Universal law
publishing co.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 2. S.N. Mishra “Code of Criminal Procedure” 2017 Central law
Publication.
3. Batuk Law the Law of Evidence, Central law Agency 2017
4. Dr. Pandey J.N. Constitutional Law of India, 51st edition 2014,
Central law Agency.

S.NO WEB LINKS

1. https://bnblegal.com/article/murder/
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/remoteness-damage-torts/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11797992/
4. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/indian-penal-code/kapur-singh-v-
state-of-pepsu-1956-air-1956-sc-
654#:~:text=The%20court%20held%20that%20the,life%20is%20to
%20be%20awarded
5. https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%2B52%2Bipc#:~:text=S
ection%2052%20IPC%20defines%20good,read%20with%20section
%20499%20IPC
6. https://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/India_Criminal_Defense_Manu
al_-_Various_Defense_Strategies
7. https://truefyi.com/state-of-orissa-vs-bhagaban-barik-case-summary/
8. https://blog.ipleaders.in/mistake-fact-mistake-law-defence/

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙅𝙐𝙍𝙄𝙎𝘿𝙄𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉

The petitioner / Appellant approaches the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution 1950, which deals with the special leave to appeal
by Supreme Court.

Article 136 states that, 'special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court'

i. Not with standing anything in this chapter, the supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
Court or tribunal in the territory of India.
ii. Nothing In clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or
order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed forces

The Apex court with a special power to grant Special leave, to appeal against any
judgement or order or decree in any matter or cause passed or made by any court/ tribunal in
the territory of India. Hence Hon'ble Supreme Court has ample jurisdiction to decide the
present SLP.

That there are special circumstances which have occurred and hence the matter requires
due consideration from the supreme Court, the respondent submits to the special leave to
appeal jurisdiction of the Honourable supreme Court. That earlier there was no such SLP
decided or pending before the court.

The Petitioner humbly submits the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble supreme Court.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙁𝘼𝘾𝙏

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. In Bahadurgarh village, Virganj district, there's an abandoned Aerodrome with

valuable Aeroscrap. The Defense Department assigned guards Jishnu and Jitender to
prevent unauthorized access and theft.

2. The Aerodrome is surrounded by Mahi tribal villages known for their orthodox
beliefs and lack of education. Due to their strong belief in ghosts, the abandoned
aerodrome has gained notoriety in the area as being haunted.

3. Dushyant Singh from Singh Brothers visited Bahadurgarh village with his servant
Vir Bahadur to purchase the Aerodrome. They stayed at Ravi Kishan's nearby house,
who runs a tea stall in the village.

4. Numerous footpaths cross the Aerodrome, connecting villages, but due to the
prevalent fear of ghosts, people avoid venturing alone on these paths at night.

5. Chand Mahi from the nearby village of Rajgarh sought shelter at Ravi Kishan's
tea stall in Bahadurgarh around 8:30 PM. Fearful of ghosts, he refrained from returning
alone to Rajgarh at that late hour.

6. Dushyant Singh, his servant Vir Bahadur, and Chand Mahi had a conversation
about ghosts in the midnight. Chand Mahi suggested that ghosts are most active on full
moon nights. Excited, Dushyant, Vir Bahadur, and Ravi Krishnan decided to explore
and walked with torchlights from the aerodrome to Rajgarh village on a footpath.

7. Passing through the aerodrome, Dushyant Singh and his companions noticed a
flickering light about 500 meters away. The wind made the light seem unusual,
resembling a 'will-o'-the-wisp, with apparitions dancing around it. Intrigued, they ran
towards the mysterious scene, excited to explore further.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

𝘼𝙎𝙎𝘼𝙄𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝘽𝙔 𝙑𝙄𝙍𝘽𝘼𝙃𝘼𝘿𝙐𝙍

8. Vir Bahadur, the servant, reached first with his 'khukhri,' attacking ghosts. When
Ravi Krishnan arrived, Vir Bahadur, unaware of his presence, accidentally struck him
with a khukuri blow, causing severe injury.

9. Ravi Krishnan screamed in pain after being accidentally injured by Vir Bahadur.
Hearing the distress cries of others, Vir Bahadur stopped attacking. It was later revealed
that the apparitions were actually Rajgarh village women collecting mohua flowers for a
local tribal ceremony, mistaken for ghosts by Vir Bahadur in the dark.

𝙄𝙉𝘾𝙍𝙄𝙈𝙄𝙉𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙊𝙉 𝙑𝙄𝙍𝘽𝘼𝙃𝘼𝘿𝙐𝙍

10. Due to Vir Bahadur's indiscriminate khukuri attack, Geetha Mahi was killed, and
two other females, Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi, suffered severe injuries.

11. An FIR was filed against Vir Bahadur. He was charged under Section 302 IPC for
Geetha Mahi's murder, Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ganga Mahi and
Sunahri Mahi, and Section 324 IPC for injuring Ravi Krishnan.

𝙅𝙐𝘿𝙂𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙎𝙀𝙎𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏

12. The Sessions Judge found the accused guilty, citing lack of 'due care and attention'
in his actions.

13. The appellant argued he mistook the victims for ghosts, but the prosecution
asserted he failed to act with 'due care and attention.'

14. Ravi Krishnan contradicted himself by denying in court that he went with
Dushyant Singh to see witches, despite admitting it in his earlier statement under Section
161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

15. The court questioned the credibility of Dushyant Singh's servant but deemed
Dushyant's consistent evidence reliable, acknowledging a possible sympathy bias due to
their relationship.

16. The court dismissed Chand Mahi's statement, as he contradicted his initial claim
of seeking shelter due to fear of ghosts and instead portrayed himself as brave during the
court proceedings. Hence, his testimony was not accorded much importance.

17. The court was informed that the appellant had a torch in his hand, supported by
the testimony of guards Jishnu and Jitender.

18. The High Court ruled that the general defense applies to someone who, due to a
genuine mistake of fact, believes in good faith that they are justified by law in their
actions. Considering Dushyant Singh's strong belief in ghosts, the court held that the
accused genuinely thought he was attacking ghosts, granting him protection under the
general defense.

𝙁𝙄𝙉𝘼𝙇 𝙑𝙀𝙍𝘿𝙄𝘾𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙃𝙤𝙣'𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙏𝘼𝙓𝙄𝙇𝘼 𝙃𝙄𝙂𝙃 𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏

19. The Taxila High Court acquitted the accused, Vir Bahadur, stating his actions
were a result of a genuine mistake of fact and a sincere belief that he was attacking ghosts,
not humans, under Section 79 of the IPC.

𝙈𝘼𝙏𝙏𝙀𝙍 𝙍𝙀𝘼𝘾𝙃𝙀𝙎 𝙏𝙊 𝙎𝙐𝙋𝙍𝙀𝙈𝙀 𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏

Subsequently, the State filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court challenging this
decision.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙀𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀𝙎

ISSUE No.1

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙃𝙄𝙂𝙃𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏 𝙃𝘼𝘿 𝙈𝘼𝘿𝙀 𝘼𝙉 𝙀𝙍𝙍𝙊𝙉𝙀𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝘿𝙀𝘾𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

ISSUE No.2

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘼𝘾𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙋𝙊𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘾𝘼𝙉 𝘽𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝙐𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙍 𝙎𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉

79 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙋𝘾 𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

ISSUE No.3

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘾𝙃𝘼𝙉𝙂𝙀𝙎 𝙇𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙇𝙇𝙀𝘿 𝘼𝙂𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙎𝙏 𝙑𝙄𝙍𝘽𝘼𝙃𝘼𝘿𝙐𝙍 𝘼𝙍𝙀 𝙈𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙉𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀

𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 𝙎𝙐𝙈𝙈𝘼𝙍𝙔 𝙊𝙁 𝘼𝙍𝙂𝙐𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏

𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀 𝙉𝙊 -1

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙃𝙄𝙂𝙃𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏 𝙃𝘼𝘿 𝙈𝘼𝘿𝙀 𝘼𝙉 𝙀𝙍𝙍𝙊𝙉𝙀𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝘿𝙀𝘾𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

It is submitted that all the necessary essentials to prove the verdict of the HC is
erroneous

- That the offence committed was heinous crime

Section 2(33) of Indian Penal Code states that heinous crime is extremely evil or
horrible. It is an act or series of acts which by the flagrantly violent manner in which the
same was committed or by the reason of its inherent viciousness shows a patent disregard
and mockery of the law, public peace and order or public morals.

-Principle of reasonable foresight exists.

According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act could have been
foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.

Pollock opined " the liability of the defendant is only for those consequences which could
have been foreseen by a reasonable man placed in the circumstances of the wrongdoer"

-There are major discrepancies in the defense version.

- credibility of Dushyant Singh is questionable

- That Jishnu and jitender choukidars are credible witness

𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀 𝙉𝙊 -2

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘼𝘾𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙋𝙊𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘾𝘼𝙉 𝘽𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝙐𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀

𝙎𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 79 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙋𝘾?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble supreme Court that the act so committed
by the respondent was without due care and attention. Good faith not established so the
act of the respondent cannot be protected under the section 79 of IPC.

𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀 𝙉𝙊 -3

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘾𝙃𝘼𝙍𝙂𝙀𝙎 𝙇𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙇𝙇𝙀𝘿 𝘼𝙂𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙎𝙏 𝙑𝙄𝙍𝘽𝘼𝙃𝘼𝘿𝙐𝙍 𝘼𝙍𝙀 𝙈𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙏𝘼𝙄𝙉𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀

𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble supreme Court that the appellant that all the
necessary essentials to prove the offense under IPC has been justified.

- Actus Reus of murder is proven.

'Actus Reus ' implies guilty act. The physical component of a crime is known as actus Reus.
It is an unlawful killing of another person in the Queen's peace.

-Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant.

Arguendo is a Latin term meaning "in arguing" Or "for the sake of argument" Or "to be
argued".Assuming ,arguendo, that.., when someone assumes something arguendo, the person
is asserting a hypothetical statement to be true for the purpose of argument regardless of
whether that statement is actually true or whether they believe it to be true.

-Belief must be reasonable

-Blind simple belief is not enough

-Accused cannot avail the right of private defence.

-Free from strong hold of superstition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 𝘼𝙍𝙂𝙐𝙈𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘼𝘿𝙑𝘼𝙉𝘾𝙀𝘿

1. 𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙃𝙄𝙂𝙃𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏 𝙃𝘼𝘿 𝙈𝘼𝘿𝙀 𝘼𝙉 𝙀𝙍𝙍𝙊𝙉𝙀𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝘿𝙀𝘾𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

It is humbly submitted that the high court had made an erroneous decision and hence
the respondent must be convicted under all the charges levelled against him i.e. section 302,
324, 326 of IPC 1860.

𝘾𝙍𝙄𝙈𝙀

𝘽𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙣𝙚 defined "crime as an act committed or omitted in violation of public law

either forbidden or commanding it". crime is the Intentional commission of an act usually
deemed social harmful or dangerous and specifically defined, prohibited and punishable under
crime law. Crime is an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law sanctioned by
the state as a felony or misdemeanor.

𝘾𝙍𝙄𝙈𝙄𝙉𝘼𝙇 𝙄𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙉𝙏

Mens rea refers to criminal content which means " Guilty mind " Or evil intention.
Mens rea is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular crime. In
criminal law intent is a subjective state mind (mens rea) that must accompany the acts of certain
times to constitute a violation.

In the case 𝘽𝙖𝙨𝙙𝙚𝙫 𝙫 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙚𝙥𝙨𝙪1 the court held that when act is done by a
person it is presumed that he must have been aware that certain specified harmful
consequences would or could follows.

In this situation, the respondent's habitual carrying of the weapon to Bahardurgarh

indicates a pattern of behavior. The fact that the respondent was aware of the weapon's lethal
potential implies a conscious understanding of its capability to cause harm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Basdev V The state of pepsu 1956 AIR 488, 1956 SCR 363.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Despite this knowledge, the respondent displayed rash behavior by using the weapon
indiscriminately, suggesting a disregard for the potential consequences. This combination of
awareness and reckless action implies a willful and dangerous disregard for the potential harm
caused by the weapon.

𝘼𝘾𝙏 𝙏𝙊 𝘽𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙃𝙄𝘽𝙄𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝘽𝙔 𝙇𝘼𝙒

In order to create criminal liability it is not sufficient that there is mens rea and an act. The
actus must be reus. However harmful or painful an event maybe it is not actus Reus unless
criminal law forbids it.In other words, the act must be one that to prohibited commanded by
law.

In the case of 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙮𝙖 𝙫𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙏𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙣𝙖𝙙𝙪2 the accused used to tease girls
working in the factory of the deceased. When the deceased objected to the same, there was
some misunderstanding and at the time of occurrance when the deceased was coming by
bicycle, the accused rushed towards him and attacking him resulting the fatal injury. Such
knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act
having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury aforesaid.

The Sessions Court's conclusion that the respondent was guilty of murdering Geetha
Mahi appears justified. The respondent's actions, driven by knowledge of the lethal
consequences of his actions, demonstrate a lack of due care and attention. In essence, the
respondent knowingly engaged in a prohibited act by causing harm to Geetha Mahi, and this
act is considered punishable under the law. The court's decision aligns with the recognition
that the respondent's conduct violated legal boundaries, making it subject to punitive measures
in accordance with the law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Thangaiya V State Of Tamilnadu 2005 CriLJ 684 JT 2004 (10) SC 421 2004 (10) SCALE 319 (2005)9 SCC
650.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

𝙇𝙀𝙂𝘼𝙇 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙁𝙊𝙍 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙋𝙊𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘼𝘾𝙏

Here in the instant case, the respondent virbahadur has been charged of 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 -302,
324,326 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙋𝘾 1860.

𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 302 - 𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙪𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine.

Section 324 of IPC : voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means:-

"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of
any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of
any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means
of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive
into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

S. 326 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or

meansDescriptionWhoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes
grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated
substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale,
to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

𝙋𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘾𝘼𝙎𝙀 𝙁𝘼𝙇𝙇 𝙐𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙍 𝙎𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 300 𝘾𝙇𝘼𝙐𝙎𝙀𝙎 4

Section 300(4)—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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.

The essential ingredients of this case are as follows.

- The act must be imminently dangerous.

-The person committing the act must be have knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous.

-That it is all probability it will clause (a) death (b) bodily injury as in likely to cause death.

- Such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification for
running the risk of causing death or such injury.

In the case of Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab3, a sudden quarrel on the spur of the
moment arose out of a trivial reason during a chance meeting between the accused and the
victim. The accused caused a single blow bay knife in the chest of the victim resulting in his
death. On these facts it was held that intention to cause death or causing part particular injury
could not be imputed to the accused, there was no proof of premeditation or malice. Therefore,
merely knowledge on the part of the accused that he was likely to cause injury which was
likely to cause death could be inferred.

In the case of Thangaiya vs. State of Tamil Nadu the court has stated that Clause (c)
of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the
act causing death. This case doesn't need to dilate much on the distinction between these
corresponding clauses. It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be
applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or
persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused you his
imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part
of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by
the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
Jagtar singh V State of Punjab 1983

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 In the case of Kapur singh vs state of pepsu4 the court held that the proper section
under which the accused should have been convicted is Section 304(1) IPC and not Section
302 IPC.The court thus, finally held that instead of the death sentence which has been awarded
to the accused by the High Court the sentence for transportation of life is to be awarded.

S𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙖𝙙𝙝𝙮𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙝 𝙫𝙨 𝙍𝙖𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙖𝙙5

In this case the Supreme Court suggested relying on clause (4) as it only requires
"knowledge" without the need to establish intention, making the legal interpretation simpler in
the given context. In the present case when the accused poured the kerosene and set fire to his
wife, he must have known that the act would result in her death. As he had no reason for
incurring such risk, the offence was held to fall within clause (4) of section 300 and would be
culpable homicide amounting to murder.

The argument presented to the Hon'ble Supreme Court asserts that the respondent's
actions were inherently perilous, having a high likelihood of causing Geetha Mahi's death or
serious bodily harm. According to Section 300(4) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, it
is emphasized that the respondent committed this act without any justifiable excuse, knowingly
exposing Geetha Mahi to the risk of fatal injury or severe harm. The submission seeks to
establish the culpability of the respondent under the specific provisions of the law pertaining
to acts with imminently dangerous consequences.

𝙐𝙎𝙀 𝙊𝙁 𝘿𝘼𝙉𝙂𝙀𝙍𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝙒𝙀𝘼𝙋𝙊𝙉𝙎

In the case of 𝙋𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙝𝙪 𝙫 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙋6 the apex court held that the expression " Any
instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. However it is important
to note that whether a particular weapon comes under the category of what constitutes
dangerous weapons. It needs to be ascertained in the light of the fact of each case (𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙞 𝙫
𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙆𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙖 (2005) 𝙘𝙧𝙇𝙅 898 (𝙨𝙘)7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Kapur Singh V State of Pepsu 1956 AIR 1956 SC 654
5
State of Madya Pradesh V Ram Prasad 1968 AIR 881, 1968 SCR (2) 522.
6
Prabhu V state of MP AIR 1991 SC 1069 1991 CriLJ 1373, 1991 supp (2) SCC 725
7
Mathai V State Of Kerala (2005) CriLJ 898 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 In this case, the use of a KHUKHRI resulted in severe injury to Ravi Krishnan,
satisfying the criteria under Section 324 for causing hurt. Simultaneously, the KHUKHRI,
employed through dangerous means, caused grievous injuries to Ganga Mahi and Sunahri
Mahi, who were gathering mohua flowers for a tribal ceremony at the Kali Mata temple. The
incident occurred during a customary practice observed by the Mahi tribes on very full moon
nights.

𝙏𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙊𝙁𝙁𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀 𝘾𝙊𝙈𝙈𝙄𝙏𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝙒𝘼𝙎 𝙃𝙀𝙄𝙉𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝙊𝙁𝙁𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀

In the case of 𝙍𝙖𝙢𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣 𝙈𝙖𝙝𝙩𝙤𝙣 𝙫 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚8 the accused has voluntarily hurt by
means of an instrument viz., a stick which is likely to cause death he will be guilty under
section 326 of the IPC.

In this case, Virbahadur deliberately caused death and grievous hurt to the ladies, fully
aware of the grave consequences associated with the use of the dangerous weapon, KHUKHRI.
These actions classify as heinous offences, rendering them non-bailable and non-
compoundable due to the severity and gravity of the acts committed by the respondent.

𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍𝙀 𝘼𝙍𝙀 𝙈𝘼𝙅𝙊𝙍 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙍𝙀𝙋𝘼𝙉𝘾𝙄𝙀𝙎 𝙄𝙉 𝘿𝙀𝙁𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀 𝙑𝙀𝙍𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉

The inconsistency in Ravi Krishnan's testimony raises concerns as he contradicted his

earlier statement under Section 161 of CrPC. Initially, he admitted that Dushyant Singh
persuaded him to go out at night to see witches, but during the court proceedings, he denied
going with Dushyant Singh. This contradiction in his statements diminishes the reliability of
his evidence, suggesting a potential lack of credibility.

In a case 𝙍𝙖𝙢 𝙨𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙥 𝙫 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙍𝙖𝙟𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣9 a statement recorded under section

161 Crpc cannot be treated as evidence in the criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose
of impeaching credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
Rambaran Mahton V The State AIR 1958 pat 452, 1958 (6) BLJR88, 1958 CriLJ 1077
9
Ram swaroop V State Of Rajasthan 2005 SCC (Cri) 161

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 Chand Mahi's reliability is questionable as he initially stated to the police that he sought
refuge in the tea stall due to fear of ghosts and later contradicted this during court proceedings,
claiming he had no fear of ghosts. This inconsistency, coupled with similar issues in the
testimony of Ravi krishnan and chand Mahi raises doubts about the consistency and reliability
of their statements.

𝘾𝙍𝙀𝘿𝙄𝘽𝙄𝙇𝙄𝙏𝙔 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘿𝙐𝙎𝙃𝙔𝘼𝙉𝙏 𝙎𝙄𝙉𝙂𝙃 𝙄𝙎 𝙌𝙐𝙀𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀

While Dushyant Singh's consistency in his statements is noted, it's essential to consider
that he is the master of the respondent. This relationship introduces the possibility of sympathy,
which may influence the credibility of Dushyant Singh's testimony and should be taken into
account.

𝙏𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙅𝙄𝙎𝙃𝙉𝙐 𝘼𝙉𝘿 𝙅𝙄𝙏𝙀𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙍 𝘼𝙍𝙀 𝘾𝙍𝙀𝘿𝙄𝘽𝙇𝙀 𝙒𝙄𝙏𝙃𝙉𝙀𝙎𝙎

The argument asserts that evidence from Jishnu and Jitender indicates the respondent
had a torch, and had he directed it toward the moving figures near the flickering light, he would
have recognized them as human beings. The lack of care and attention resulting in the offense
suggests a disregard for safety.

The contention is that the Taxila High Court made an erroneous decision by acquitting
the respondent, emphasizing the clear absence of good faith in his actions.

𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀 𝙉𝙊 -2

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘼𝘾𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙋𝙊𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙉𝙏 𝘾𝘼𝙉 𝘽𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙏𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝙐𝙉𝘿𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀

𝙎𝙀𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 79 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙋𝘾?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble supreme Court that the act so committed by the
respondent was without due care and attention. Good faith not established so the act of the
respondent cannot be protected under the section 79 of 𝙄𝙋𝘾

Section 79 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860, 79. Act done by a person justified, or by
mistake of fact believ-ing himself justified, by law.—

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by
reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself
to be justified by law, in doing it.
Mistake must be of fact and not of law. The burden of proving there is a mistake of fact
is on the Accused and the court will assume there is not a mistake of fact unless the Accused
brings the evidence forward.An Accused does not bring the evidence forward until after the
prosecution has crossed the barrier of innocence.

In Bai Ramilaben v. State of Gujarat10, a mother accused of killing her four children,
the prosecution failed to produce a medical report as to the mother's mental state as an element
to the crime and the mother did not have to establish a defence.

The case of King Emperor v Tustipada Mandal11 clarified that in India, a mistake of
law includes errors about the existence of law on a specific issue and misunderstandings about
what the law entails. The legal principle of "ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law
is not an excuse) is upheld for public interest. Allowing mistakes of law as a defense could
lead to widespread claims, making it challenging for the prosecution to refute and establish
that the accused knew the relevant law. This could introduce complexities, impede justice, and
potentially encourage ignorance of the law if such mistakes were accepted.

the case of R. v. Prince, (1683) 2 Ch. C. 15412, which has been the guiding star in
England & elsewhere whenever the question of justification of an offence either due to mistake
of fact or mistake of law has arisen :

"(i) That when an act is in itself plainly criminal, Is 1b more severely punishable if certain
circumstances co-exist, ignorance of the existence of such circumstances is no answer to a
charge for the aggravated offence.
(ii) That where an not is prima facie innocent & proper, unless certain circumstances co-exist,
then ignorance of such circumstances is an answer to the charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
Bai Ramilaban V State Of Gujarat 1990
11
The King V Tustipada Mandal AIR 1951, Ori 284
12
R V Prince (1683) 2 ch-c-154

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

(iii) That the state of the deft's mind must amount to absolute ignorance of the existence of the
circumstance which alters the character of the act, or to a belief in its non-existence.

(iv) Where an act which is in itself wrong i.e., under certain circumstances, criminal, a person
who does the wrong act cannot set up as a defence that he wag ignorant of the facts which
turned the wrong into a crime.

(v) Where a statute makes it penal to do an act under certain circumstances, It ix a question
upon the wording & object of the particular statute, whether the responsibility of ascertaining
that the circumstances exist is thrown upon the person who does the act or not. In the former
case his knowledge is immaterial."

𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙖 𝙫 𝙗𝙝𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙗𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙠13 case the High Court's acquittal based on the
defendant's plea of mistake of fact under section 79 of the Indian Penal Code seems flawed
and has led to a clear miscarriage of justice. The strained relationship between the respondent
and the deceased over cattle grazing does not justify the respondent's use of force, as the
deceased posed no immediate threat and was not attempting to enter the house. The evidence
suggests that the respondent intentionally followed and attacked the deceased, causing fatal
injuries. Consequently, the respondent's bail will be revoked, and he will be taken into custody
to complete the remainder of the sentence.

In this case, despite the favorable visibility of a full moon night and the availability of
torches, the respondent and the others failed to make any attempt to identify the alleged
apparitions. The lack of effort to use the torches for confirmation, coupled with the significant
distance of about 500 meters, raises doubts about the possibility of accurately identifying the
figures as ghosts or anything else. The respondent's hasty and reckless actions, including the
stabbing of the deceased and injuries to others, indicate a failure to consider alternative actions,
making the plea of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code less tenable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
State Of Orissa V Bhagaban Barik 1987 AIR 1265, 1987 SCR (2) 785

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 According to section 52 of Indian penal code, Nothing is said to be done or believed in
“good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.
Good faith in the Indian Penal Code means actions or beliefs made with proper care and
attention.

It would appear that for purposes of the definition of the expression ‘done in good faith’
as given in section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, any action taken by a person being aware
of possible harm to others in total reckless disregard of the consequences can be treated as not
honest. In deciding the question of good faith, what comes into consideration is the intention
of honesty and the absence of bad faith or mala fide.

Shareef Ahmad v. CWT14 It is pertinent to note section 52 of the Indian Penal Code
which defines ‘good faith’ as nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is
done or believed without due care or attention. For purposes of criminal liability, anything
which is done or believed without care and attention, cannot be said to have been done or
believed in good faith.

Thus, if one shoots an arrow in the dark without ascertaining no one is there, he cannot
be excused because he failed to exercise due care.

If a person of average prudence in that situation can ascertain the facts with average
diligence, a person taking the defence of mistake of those facts cannot be said to have taken
due care and thus, is not excusable.

𝙈𝙤𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙢𝙖𝙙 𝘼𝙡𝙞 𝙫 𝙎𝙧𝙞 𝙍𝙖𝙢 𝙨𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙪𝙥15

Ram Swarup was a head constable and had arrested Mohammad Ali. Mohammad filed
a case against Swarup stating that he had falsely arrested him. It was seen that Swarup had
arrested him without particular reasons and had kept him in unlawful detention. It was stated
in the above-mentioned case that ignorance of law even in good faith is not justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
Shareef Ahmed V CWT (1979) 117 ITR 35 (ALL)
15
Mohammed Ali V Sriram Swarup AIR 1965 ALL 161, 1965 CriLJ 413

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

𝘿𝙪𝙩𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚

Here the respondent's responsibility was to assess the situation before recklessly
attacking, considering there was sufficient light to distinguish between a human and a ghost.
Moreover, upon attacking, he should have been attentive to the cries of the deceased, but he
continued until grievously injuring others. This negligent conduct not only caused physical
harm but also inflicted mental distress, underscoring the gravity of the respondent's actions.

𝙌𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝

In this case, it's crucial to note that the respondent's actions cannot be justified as
stemming from ignorance of relevant facts or mistaken beliefs. The absence of good faith on
the part of the respondent suggests a willful disregard for potential harmful consequences.
Unlike situations where individuals may unknowingly cause harm due to lack of awareness,
here, the respondent's actions reflect a conscious and intentional disregard for the well-being
of others.

The respondent cannot further take plea of section 79 of IPC.

𝙄𝙎𝙎𝙐𝙀 𝙉𝙊 -3

𝙒𝙃𝙀𝙏𝙃𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘾𝙃𝘼𝙍𝙂𝙀𝙎 𝙇𝙀𝙑𝙀𝙇𝙇𝙀𝘿 𝘼𝙂𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙎𝙏 𝙑𝙄𝙍𝘽𝘼𝙃𝘼𝘿𝙐𝙍 𝘼𝙍𝙀 𝙈𝘼𝙄𝙉𝙏𝘼𝙄𝙉𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀

𝙊𝙍 𝙉𝙊𝙏?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble supreme Court that the appellant that all the
necessary essentials to prove the offense under IPC has been justified.

- Actus Reus of murder is proven.

'Actus Reus ' implies guilty act. The physical component of a crime is known as actus Reus.
The Actus Reus of murder is defined by Lord coke in the 17th century as the unlawful killing
of another person in the Queen's peace.

-Arguendo, absence of motive is irrelevant.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 Arguendo is a Latin term meaning "in arguing" Or "for the sake of argument" Or "to be
argued".Assuming ,arguendo, that.., when someone assumes something arguendo, the person
is asserting a hypothetical statement to be true for the purpose of argument regardless of
whether that statement is actually true or whether they believe it to be true.

Arguendo, the absence of a motive is considered irrelevant in a crime, particularly in

legal contexts. Motive, though often helpful in establishing intent, is not a necessary element
for proving a criminal offense. In the cases, such as Regina v. Cunningham (1957)16, have
emphasized that the prosecution is not obliged to establish a motive, and the focus is generally
on the act itself and the intent behind it rather than the underlying reasons. In the absence of a
clear motive, other evidentiary factors may still be used to establish guilt or innocence.

Belief must be reasonable

In the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab17, a crucial point highlighted by
the court is the requirement of due care and attention when making a statement. The court
emphasizes that merely having a belief is not sufficient for a plea of good faith; there must be
reasonable grounds for believing.

Moreover, the court clarifies that good faith doesn't demand logical infallibility but
necessitates due care and caution. This standard of care is subjective and should be evaluated
based on the general circumstances as well as the capacity and intelligence of the person
involved. Importantly, the law recognizes that individuals may exercise different levels of care
and attention based on their positions and capabilities. This case underscores the nuanced
nature of evaluating good faith, considering the specific circumstances and the individual's
capacity and intelligence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
R V Cunningham (1957) 3 WLR 76)
17
Harbhajan singh V State Of Punjab 1966 AIR 97, 1965 SCR (3) 235

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

BLIND SIMPLE BELIF IS NOT ENOUGH

The legal principle that blind or simple belief may not be sufficient is evident in cases
such as R v. Kimsey (1996)18. In this case, the court emphasized that a genuine belief must
have some foundation in reason and cannot be purely subjective or irrational. The requirement
is for the belief to be reasonable in the eyes of an ordinary person. This underscores that the
law generally does not recognize blind or unfounded beliefs as valid defenses.

The legal principle that belief must be reasonable means that, in the eyes of the law, a
valid defense requires the belief to be rational and justifiable. This implies that the belief should
be one that a reasonable person would hold under similar circumstances, ensuring a balanced
and objective assessment in legal contexts.

-Accused cannot avail the right of private defence.

In law, the right of private defense is recognized, but it is not absolute. There are
limitations and conditions that must be met for the accused to avail this right. The force used
must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced. If excessive force is employed, it can
negate the right of private defense.

In this case Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1970)19 emphasized that the force
used in private defense should not exceed what is necessary. If excessive force is employed,
the accused may lose the protection of the right of private defense.

Therefore, while individuals have the right to defend themselves, the use of force must
be reasonable and justified based on the imminent threat faced. Excessive or disproportionate
force may lead to the accused being held liable for their actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
R V Kimsey 1996
19
Ratanlal V State Of MP 1971 AIR 778 1971 SCR (3) 251 1970 SCC (3) 533 ACT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 In the case of Vijayee Singh and Ors vs State20 establishes that for the accused to
claim the benefit of the right of private defense, they must plead and prove, as per Section 105
of the Evidence Act, that they are entitled to this exception. In simpler terms, the burden of
proving the existence of the right of private defense rests on the accused. In this specific case,
the court noted that the accused failed to discharge this burden, emphasizing that the mere
presence of simple injuries on the accused doesn't automatically imply a valid claim of self-
defense.

In this case, the failure to conduct due inquiries implicates the accused in a lack of good
faith, removing the protection under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the
respondent cannot claim the right of private defense, as he should be held accountable for a
heinous act resulting in loss of life and endangering others due to his negligent and
unreasonable belief.

Based on the cases discussed, it is established that the duty of proving the entitlement
to a defense under the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code lies with the accused. In
the current case involving Virbahadur, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate to the court,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that his actions fall within the recognized defenses and that the
circumstances were such that his act could not have been avoided. The burden of proof rests
on Virbahadur to establish the validity of his defense in accordance with legal principles.

-Free from strong hold of superstition.

One notable case related to crimes influenced by superstition Bhopal Witch-Hunt

Case (2004)21

In Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, a series of murders occurred where individuals,

particularly women, were targeted based on suspicions of witchcraft. This highlighted a
disturbing trend where superstitions led to violence and loss of life. Several people were
arrested and tried for their involvement in these crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20
Vijayee singh and Ors V State 1990 AIR 1459, 1990 SCR (2) 573
21
Bhopal Witch - Hunt case 2004

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 While specific case laws may not be explicitly tied to superstition, this case serves as
an example of how superstitious beliefs can lead to criminal acts. It also underscores the need
for legal measures to address such crimes and educate communities about the dangers of
superstition-driven violence.

Being free from the stronghold of superstition is crucial to avoid crimes because it
promotes rational thinking, evidence-based decision-making, and objective judgment. When
individuals and communities are guided by reason rather than irrational beliefs, the likelihood
of succumbing to superstitious-driven crimes diminishes. This approach fosters a society
where actions are grounded in logic and facts, reducing the risk of harmful behaviors
influenced by unfounded fears or irrational beliefs.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts of the Instant case, issue raised, argument advanced
reasons given and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that
it may be pleased

- That the Respondent virbahadur should be convicted for Murder of Geetha Mahi and
Grievous hurt to Sunahri Mahi and Ganga Mahi and hurt to Ravi krishnan.

- To set aside the impugned judgement of the Hon'ble Taxila Highcourt and the benefit
of section 79 of IPC should not be given.

- Any other Relief that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant in the interests of justice
equity and good conscience.

Place:

Date: Counsel for appellant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT