Gunjan Bhardwaj

BA LLB 4th yr.

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDCA

Criminal Appeal No. 374/24

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF KAMIL

................................................. APPELLANT

VERSUS

PIYUSH

........................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 LIST OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………….

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………....

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………....

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………….

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………….......

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& AND

Anr. ANOTHER

B/O BEHALF OF

HON’BLE HONORABLE

NO NUMBER

PARA PARAGRAPH

SEC SECTION

CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

HC HIGH COURT

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

V. VERSUS
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOK REFERRED
• BARE ACT OF BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA,2023
• BARE ACT OF BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,2023
• P S A PILLAI ,CRIMINAL LAW BY LEXISNEXIS , 2019

LEGAL DATABASE
• SCC ONLINE
• INDIAN KANOON
• ALL INDIA REPORTER
• CASEMINE
• MANUPATRA OST COMMENTS

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:

https://www.sci.gov.in
 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.
 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.

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.
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the appeal Petition is maintainable or not.

2.WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY

EXISTS SO AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM
LIABILITY OF MURDER?
 SUMMARY Of ARGUMENTS

1.Whether the appeal Petition is maintainable or not.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the State has the legal right to
challenge an acquittal if it results in a miscarriage of justice.The High
Court’s acquittal disregarded critical evidence, including the dying
declaration and forensic findings, justifying the State's appeal. The Sessions
Court correctly convicted Piyush based on strong evidence.The High
Court’s decision to acquit overlooked substantial proof, making the appeal
valid to prevent injustice.

The State has fulfilled all procedural requirements.The appeal was filed
within the statutory period and meets all formal conditions for
maintainability. Established legal precedents affirm the State’s right to
appeal against acquittals in cases where the lower court’s judgment is
legally flawed.The Supreme Court has the authority to review and rectify
such judicial errors.

2.WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS

SO AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF
MURDER?

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 postcrime 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.
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.
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1.Whether the appeal is maintainable or not.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Indica to entertain the appeal:
The present appeal is maintainable under the appellate jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica. The State of Kamil has preferred this
appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Kamil under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
And the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which are in pari
materia with the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) respectively.

The Supreme Court of India has special leave authority under Article 136
of the Indian Constitution, which enables it to consider appeals against
decisions, orders, or judgments made by any Indian court or body. The
current case involves an appeal against the High Court’s decision to acquit
the accused, and it presents important legal issues pertaining to the
interpretation and use of the legal insanity defense under Section 22 of the
BNS.

Right of the State to appeal against an acquittal:

The State Government has the right to challenge a High Court acquittal
ruling under Section 414 of the BNSS, which is comparable to Section 378
of the CrPC. As a party who feels wronged in this case, the State of Kamil
has used its statutory right to contest the accused’s acquittal on the grounds
that the High Court misinterpreted legal insanity and overlooked the
prosecution’s evidence.

The State has a right to demand that an incorrect acquittal be overturned

in order to preserve the rule of law, according to the Honorable Supreme
Court’s repeated rulings. The Court noted in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan
Lal (2004) 5 SCC 573 that an appeal against acquittal may be filed if the
ruling is illogical, goes against the facts presented, or is founded on a
misreading of the law. The current situation is perfectly within these
bounds.
Grave Miscarriage of Justice:
The Hon’ble High Court’s decision to acquit the accused on the ground of
legal insanity has resulted In a grave miscarriage of justice. The Sessions
Court, after a detailed examination of the evidence, Had rightly convicted
the accused under Section 103(1) of BNS (equivalent to Section 302 IPC)
Based on the overwhelming evidence including:
(a) The dying declaration of the deceased, which unequivocally blamed
the accused.
(b) Eyewitness testimony of PW3 (Jimmy) who observed the accused
hiding the murder weapon.
(c) Forensic evidence confirming the presence of the accused’s
fingerprints on the murder weapon.

An incorrect acquittal was the consequence of the High Court’s improper

analysis of this evidence and its excessive reliance on the medical testimony
without using the appropriate legal standard for insanity. In order to
preserve the integrity of the judicial system and avoid injustices, the
Honorable Supreme Court should step in.

Substantial Questions of Law Arising for Consideration:

The present appeal involves the following substantial questions of law
which merit the exercise of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction:
(a) Scope and Applicability of Legal Insanity (Section 22 of BNS):
Whether the defense of legal Insanity is available when the accused
had prior medical knowledge of his mental condition and Whether
the evidence sufficiently establishes the absence of mens rea.

(b) Standard of Proof for Insanity Defense: Whether the burden of

proving legal insanity was Discharged by the accused as required
under the law and whether the High Court’s reliance on the
Defense’s medical evidence was legally sound.

(c) Reliability of Dying Declaration: Whether the High Court failed to

give due weightage to the Dying declaration of the deceased, which is
a vital piece of evidence and carries a presumption of Truthfulness.
 The legal concerns in this case go beyond the specific facts and bring
up issues of broad public interest, such as how the insanity defense
should be applied and how to strike a balance between personal
mental health difficulties and public safety.

Precedential Authority for Entertaining the Appeal:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has entertained
appeals against acquittals where There is an apparent misapplication
of law or where material evidence has been ignored. Not able
Precedents include:

(a) State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153:
The Court held that an Appeal against acquittal is maintainable
when there are compelling reasons such as misappreciation Of
evidence or error in legal interpretation.
(b) State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC
475: The Court reiterated That the appellate powers under Article
136 should be invoked to correct manifest injustice.

Timeliness of the Appeal:

The present appeal has been filed within the statutory period of
limitation prescribed under the BNSS. The High Court judgment
acquitting the accused was delivered on 1st December 2024, and The State
of Kamil filed the appeal on 15th December 2024, which is well within the
permissible Timeframe.
 2. WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY
EXISTS SO AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM
LIABILITY OF MURDER?

The Respondent Does Not Satisfy the Legal Test for Insanity Under
Section 22 of BNS:
T is respectfully submitted that the defense of insanity under Section
22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires the accused to
establish that, at the time of the offense:-

• He was suffering from unsoundness of mind;

• He was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was

wrong or contrary to law. The Hon’ble High Court has wrongly
acquitted the Respondent by misapplying the legal standard For
insanity. The evidence on record does not establish that the
Respondent was legally insane at the Time of the crime.

In the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 533, that the defense of insanity
cannot be invoked based only on evidence of mental disorder. The accused has to demonstrate that
his condition prevented him from comprehending the nature of his actions. There isn't any solid
behavioral or medical proof that the respondent in this case was legally insane

.The Burden of Proof Lies on the Accused and Was Not Discharged :

It is a settled principle that the burden of proving insanity rests on the accused, and he must
Establish it on a preponderance of probabilities. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State
of Gujarat, (1964) 7 SCR 361, the Supreme Court held that: -
• The prosecution does not have to prove sanity;

• The accused must positively establish that he was legally insane at the time of the crime.
In the present case, the Respondent failed to meet this burden, as:
• The psychiatric testimony (DW1) was inconclusive and only stated that the Respondent
Suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder, which does not automatically mean he was legally
Insane.
• No expert evidence confirmed that the Respondent was incapable of knowing the nature
of his Acts at the relevant time.
• The Respondent’s conduct before and after the offense suggests awareness, contradicting
the Claim of legal insanity.
Dying Declaration of the Victim is Reliable and Should Be Given Due Weight:
The prosecution’s case is significantly strengthened by the dying declaration of Nikita, who
clearly Named the Respondent as the attacker. It is a settled principle that a dying
declaration, if found Reliable, can be the sole basis of conviction.
In State of Punjab v. Parveen, (2022) 6 SCC 693, the Supreme Court held that a dying
declaration Must be accepted unless there are strong reasons to doubt its credibility. In the
present case:

• The victim, Nikita, was in a fit state of mind when she gave the declaration.
• There is no evidence of coercion or fabrication.
• The Respondent failed to prove why the dying declaration should be disregarded.
Thus, the dying declaration is strong evidence of guilt and further discredits the insanity
defense.

The Presumption of Sanity Was Not Rebutted by the Defense :

The law presumes that every person is sane unless proven otherwise. In Bapu v. State of
Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66, the Supreme Court held that an accused cannot claim insanity
merely by proving Mental illness. There must be clear evidence showing that:
• The accused was suffering from severe cognitive dysfunction;
• He was incapable of understanding the nature of his act.
In this case, the Respondent failed to rebut the presumption of sanity, as:

• The medical testimony did not conclusively prove that he was mentally incapacitated at
the Time of the incident.
• His behavior during and after the crime suggests comprehension and awareness.
Thus, the presumption of sanity remains intact, and the Respondent cannot escape liability.

The Respondent’s Conduct Proves Awareness and Guilty Intent :

 A crucial factor in determining legal insanity is the conduct of the
accused before, during, and after The offense. In Shikhari v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 5 SCC 345, the Supreme Court held that:

• If an accused plans the act, executes it systematically, or attempts to

conceal evidence, it
• Indicates awareness and criminal intent, negating an insanity
plea.
In the present case, the Respondent’s own conduct disproves legal insanity:

• He carried out the attack with an axe, a deliberate act requiring conscious
effort.
• He did not exhibit any irrational behavior before the crime, showing that
he was in control of His faculties.
• He made coherent statements after the incident, suggesting awareness of
his actions.
These factors prove that the Respondent had the cognitive ability to
understand his actions, thereby Negating the defense of insanity.

The Defense of Insanity Cannot Be Based on Post-Incident Psychiatric

Evaluations :
The Respondent’s claim of insanity is based on medical reports prepared
after the incident, which Do not prove his mental state at the time of the
offense.
In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495, the Supreme
Court held that a Psychiatric diagnosis made after the offense is not
conclusive evidence of insanity at the time of the Act. In the present case:
• The Respondent was diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder after the
crime, but there is no Proof that he suffered a psychotic episode during the
attack.
• The defense failed to provide credible past medical records proving a
history of legal insanity. Thus, the High Court erred in relying on post-
incident medical evaluations to justify the acquittal.
Conclusion:
In light of the foregoing arguments, it is most respectfully submitted that:
• The Respondent does not meet the legal criteria for insanity under Section
22 of BNS.
• The burden of proof was not discharged, as the Respondent failed to
prove cognitive Incapacity at the time of the act.
• The Respondent’s conduct shows awareness and negates the plea of
insanity.
• The dying declaration of the victim is reliable and directly implicates the
Respondent.
• The presumption of sanity remains unrebutted, and the High Court
wrongly accepted the Insanity plea.
• The acquittal is based on misinterpretation of legal principles and should
be set aside.
 PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Supreme Court, that it
may be pleased to:
1. Set aside the acquittal of the Respondent and convict him under Section 103(1) of
BNS for Murder.
2. Hold that the defense of insanity was not satisfactorily proven and does not
exonerate the Respondent from liability.
3. Pass such further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of
justice.
And this Act of kindness the appellant as are duty bound shall ever pray.