IN THE HONOURABLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH

COURT
CHANDIGARH

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Criminal Appeal no. :

/2015

IN THE MATTER OF
AMAR SINGH

APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE

RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF CASE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 374 OF THE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant

RAYAT AND BAHRA COLLEGE OF LAW, SAHAURAN, MOHALI

Memorial For Appellant

Table of Contents
Abbreviation.............................................................................................................................III
List of authorities.....................................................................................................................IV
Statement of Jurisdicition........................................................................................................VI
Statement of Facts..................................................................................................................VII
Issues.....................................................................................................................................VIII
Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not..................VIII
Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not.........VIII
Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................IX
Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not.....................IX
Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not............IX
Arguments..................................................................................................................................1
1.

Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be taken or not...........................1

2.

Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not..................4

Prayer.........................................................................................................................................9

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 2

Memorial For Appellant

ABBREVIATION
A.I.R.
A.P.
All.
Anr.
Bom.
CCC
Cri.
Cr.L.J
Cr.P.C
Ed.
Guj.
H.C
Honble
I.P.C
ILR
Kant.
Ker.
Misc.
N .C.T
Ors.
P&H
R.C.R
SC
SCC
SCR
Sec.
U.P.
UOI
v.

All India Reporter

Andhra Pradesh
Allahabad
Another
Bombay
Criminal Court Cases
Criminal
Criminal Law Journal
Code of Criminal Procedure
Edition
Gujarat
High Court
Honourable
Indian Penal Code
Indian Law Reporter
Karnataka
Kerala
Miscellaneous
National Capital Territory
Others
Punjab and Haryana
Recent Criminal Reporter
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Section
Uttar Pradesh
Union of India
Versus

LIST

OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
1) Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS
1) H.S GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA (Law Publishers Allahabad, 2006)
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 3

Memorial For Appellant

2) K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS , 5th Edition, 2008
3) P S A PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW (Lexis Nexis Butterwords New Delhi, 2007)
4) RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
2008)
5) R.V. KELKARS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 5th Edition 2012

DICTIONARIES
1) BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, (11th Ed.1999)
2) OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY OUP
3) P. RAMANATHA AIYARS THE LAW LEXICON, THE ENCYCLOPEDIC LAW , (2nd Ed,
reprint 2009)

WEBSITES
1) www.manupatra.com
2) www.indiankanoon.org

TABLE OF CASES

Hussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 33...............................................................7

Anjus Dundung vs State of Jharkhand 2004(4) crimes 136 (SC)...............................................6
Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1......................................................................................4
Bimal Indwar v. State of Assam, 1982 Cr. L. J. 1804.................................................................8
Brend v. Wood, (1946) 110 JP 317 (318....................................................................................5
Chandrabhan Srivastav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 M.P.L.J.........................................7
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat 1964 AIR 1563...................................5
Deepak C. Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (2) Apex Cri 552 (S.C.)....................................8
Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh1974 Cr LJ 1249........................................6
Dwarka Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 204....................................................4
Erabhadhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Crimes 784..............................................7
Gambir v.State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 S.C.C 351: A.I.R 1982 S.C 1157..............................7
Govinda Reddy, 1960 S.C. 29.....................................................................................................7
Gurmail Singh v State of Punjab..............................................................................................8
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 S.C.343........................................................7
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97...............................................................2
Hussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 33...............................................................7
Pawan Mandal v. State of Punjab..............................................................................................7
Jayraraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519...................................................................6
Kashi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh....................................................................................8
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 4

Memorial For Appellant

Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753................................................................6
Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R 2000 S.C.3649..................................................................6
Kusum Ankama Rao v.State of A.P, A.I.R 2008 S.C. 2819.........................................................7
Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh..............................3
Nga Po Nayan v.Emperor, A.I.R 1937 Rang...............................................................................8
Nikunja Roy v. State, 1992 (Cal.) Cr.L.R. 366;..........................................................................7
Pawan Mandal v. State of Punjab..............................................................................................7
Pema Duptar v.State, 1981 Cr. L. J. 276....................................................................................8
Prakash Bicholkar v. State, 1981 Cr.L.J. 440 at p. 441 (Goa)...................................................7
Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 Cr. L. J 2190..................................................................6
Ram Nand v.State of H.P, A.I.R 1981 S.C. 738...........................................................................7
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51..........................................................2
Sanjeev v. State of Haryana......................................................................................................8
Sharda Birchand v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1984 S.C.1682...............................................7
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 489 (492-93)................6, 8
Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras...................................................................................4
Shiwaji Saherbrao Bode v.State of Maharashtra 1973 CAR 410 S.C........................................8
Srinivas Mall v. Emperor, 49 Bom LR 688 = (AIR 1947 PC 135)...........................................5
State of Karnataka vs. Satish....................................................................................................3

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 5

Memorial For Appellant

STATEMENT

OF JURISDICITION

The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for a Criminal Appeal filed before this
Honble Court. The Appellant have approached the Honble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana under Section-374(2), which states as follows:
Appeals from convictions.
(1) xxx..
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven year has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same
trial], may appeal to the High Court.
(3) ..xxxxx

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 6

Memorial For Appellant

STATEMENT OF FACTS

That a boy , Praveen aged 15 years was run over by bus in the middle of hill road and
died on the spot
That According to the police investigations passengers in the bus alarmed the driver
and cautioned him to stop as they had seen school children crossing road in que.
That Bus ran over the student on his head and could be stopped only 15 to 20 feet of
spot of occurrence
That Investigating officer charged him with section 302 IPC and accused driver
pleaded defence of accident under Section 80 IPC
That The court of session found no intention but held that the accused acted with
knowledge and made him liable under section 300(4) murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment
That Now the accused have filed appealed in this Honble high Court

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 7

Memorial For Appellant

ISSUES

Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not

Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 8

Memorial For Appellant

SUMMARY

OF

ARGUMENTS

Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not

That it is submitted before the Honble Court that the present matter of appellant comes under
the general exception as laid down under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code. The counsel for
the appellant submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the story as laid down by them
in the trial done in trial court and it will be grave injustice to convict innocent person and
benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not
That it is submitted that the accused cannot be convicted under Section- 300(4) of the Indian
Penal Code. The main contention regarding this is that the knowledge under section 300(4)
involves the Criminal knowledge of the accused and not the general knowledge. The Honble
SC has on various occasion have clarified and stated that the knowledge under section 300(4)
involved is criminal knowledge and in the present matter Criminal Knowledge as well as
Criminal Intention both were absent hence accused cannot be convicted with the charge of
murder.

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 9

Memorial For Appellant

ARGUMENTS

1. Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be

taken or not
1.1. That it is submitted before the Honble Court that the present matter of appellant
comes under the general exception as laid down under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code.
The counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the story
as laid down by them in the trial done in trial court and it will be grave injustice to
convict innocent person and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

1.2. That section 80 IPC states as follows:

Accident in doing a lawful act.Nothing is an offence which is done by accident
or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a
lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution
1.3.

That the accidents have always been recognized as a valid defence to criminal
liability provided certain other conditions are also satisfied. First the act under question
should be without any criminal intention or knowledge. Secondly the accident ,must
have occurred while doing of a lawful act in a lawful; manner by lawful means. Thirdly
the lawful act should have been done with proper care and caution if these three criteria
are satisfied, then an act done by accident and misfortune will not be an offence. That as
laid down by Honble Supreme Court in various judgments that it is necessary that the
act was done without any criminal intention and knowledge. It must be without mens
rea or guilty mind.

1.4.

That Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, states:

"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the
Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any
other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and
the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 1

Memorial For Appellant

That the Honble Allahabad High Court observed that for the manner in which the
burden may be discharged should be not beyond reasonable doubt but it should be
either by proof through preponderance of probabilities or by creating a reasonable doubt
in the mind of the Court.1
1.5.

That where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to
discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has
discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be
applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case
falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case
falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged if the accused person
succeeds 'in proving a preponderance of probability2

1.6. That when the accused raises the plea contained in Sections 80 and 84, I.P.C. what he
contends is that he did not have the criminal intention or knowledge contemplated by
the definition of the "offence". Criminal intention or knowledge is a material ingredient
of Section 80 the other ingredients being that the act should be lawful and was done in a
lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. The burden of proof
on the prosecution to establish its case rests from the beginning to the end of the trial
and it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence
with the requisite mens rea. The burden placed on the accused is not so onerous as on
the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in
determining whether the accused has been successful in discharging the onus, the Court
shall look into the preponderance of probabilities in the same manner as in a civil
proceeding. In other words, the Court shall have to see whether a prudent man would, in
the circumstances of the case, act on the supposition that the case falls within the
exception or proviso as pleaded by the accused.

1 Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51
2 Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97; V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P., AIR
1966 SC 1762
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 2

Memorial For Appellant

1.7.

That in the present matter, the prosecution story that the driver was alarmed of
the enormous speed of the bus by the passengers does not itself proves that the bus was
being driven on a high speed. It is a mere perception of some passengers according to
whom the speed of bus was high. But it is submitted before this Honble court that the
bus was being driven within the speed limits allowed on the hill road and thus the act of
the appellant was a lawful act which was being done in lawful mean as the appellant
was well within the speed limits of the area. It was explained in State of Karnataka vs.
Satish3 by the bench that Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed"
does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what
they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution
to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts
and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything
essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the
prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the

contrary is proved.
1.8.
That where there were discrepancies and contradiction in the statements of the
witnesses as in Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh , the Honble SC held that Reasonable allowance can be made for such
discrepancies. But when such discrepancies make the foundation of prosecution case
shaky, Court has to take strict note thereof. 4 In the present matter, there are lots of
contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The fact on record as submitted by the
investigators states that there was a que of students crossing the road but how can a
prudent and rationale person can think of that a bus which ran over a student out of that
que didnt even injured any other student of that que. Thus the prosecution story is
totally vague and the statements of the witnesses are not admissible at all. It is further
submitted that there was neither any pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing nor any
intimation that the road ahead is available for the pedestrians. The said student suddenly
jumped on the road without any precautions and the teacher accompanying the students

3 1999 ACJ, 1378 (1998), SCC 493

4 2014(3) Law herald (SC) 2160
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 3

Memorial For Appellant

for their safeguard have narrated this story to the investigator on the basis of which the
whole conviction is made
That the SC held that the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should

1.9.

give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment
of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong
appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to
reverse the judgment, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be
gross miscarriage of justice.5 unless an accused person is given the benefit of reasonable
doubt on an exception, there will be miscarriage of justice
1.10.
That it is submitted that the driver drove the bus with due care and caution,
and d there was a lack of duty on the part of the teachers who should have acted
cautiously while taking students to the busy roads. The driver as soon saw the student
applied the brakes of bus but a prudent man has knowledge that a bus cannot be stopped
at a moment which caused this accident. Thus the appellant should be given the benefit
of the defence under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code as all the ingredients of the said
section are fulfilled and it would be a grave miscarriage of justice if the order of
conviction will not be set aside.
2. Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be
set aside or not.
2.1. That it is submitted that the accused cannot be convicted under Section- 300(4) of the
Indian Penal Code. The main contention regarding this is that the knowledge under
section 300(4) involves the Criminal knowledge of the accused and not the general
knowledge. The Honble SC has on various occasion have clarified and stated that the
knowledge under section 300(4) involved is criminal knowledge and in the present
matter Criminal Knowledge as well as Criminal Intention both were absent hence
accused cannot be convicted with the charge of murder.
That in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras6, also the Supreme Court

2.2.

referred to these rules. It held that, in construing the section of an Act and determining
its true scope, "it is permissible to have regard to all such factors as can legitimately be
taken into account in ascertaining the intention of the legislature, such as history of the
5 Dwarka Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 204
6 AIR 1967 SC 986
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 4

Memorial For Appellant

statute, the reason which led to its being passed, the mischief which it intended to
suppress and the remedy provided by the Statute for curing the mischief." If upon the
evidence adduced in the case whether by the prosecution or by the accused a reasonable
doubt is created in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of
the offence including mens rea of the accused he would be entitled to be acquitted."7
2.3.

That it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is

presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of
homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the
requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general
burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution 8.The offence of murder is
defined in Section 300, I.P.C. Every homicide is not murder. It is only culpable
homicide which can amount to murder.

2.4.

That the word 'culpable' means criminal or blame-worthy. Consequently, the

intention or knowledge contemplated by Section 300, I.P.C. must be a criminal or guilty
one. Where it appears that the intention or knowledge is not criminal or illegal, the
causing of death cannot be said to be culpable and it shall not be 'culpable homicide',
that is, murder. In the circumstances, it must be held that the intention or knowledge
contemplated by Section 300, I.P.C. is a criminal or guilty intention knowledge, and not
mere intention or knowledge. To make this point more clear it must be mentioned that it
is a well established rule that "unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary
implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not
be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.
Such observations made an Brend v. Wood, (1946) 110 JP 317 (318) were quoted with
approval by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Srinivas Mall v. Emperor, 49 Bom
LR 688 = (AIR 1947 PC 135). Consequently, the ingredients of the offence under
Section 300, I.P.C. are the doing of an act by which the death is caused, and the doing of
the act with the intention, that is, criminal intention to cause death. Where the accused
seeks the benefit of the General Exceptions contained in Sections 80 and 84, I.P.C.,

7 Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1

8 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat 1964 AIR 1563
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 5

Memorial For Appellant

what he implies to mean is that he did not have the guilty intention at the time he caused
the death.
2.5.

That the defence plea shall be looked into whether the accused has succeeded to
rebut the presumption, that is to disprove the absence of the circumstances
contemplated by the above sections. Once the accused succeeds in establishing his plea,
he would deserve acquittal on account of there being no guilty intention; it is a different
thing that he may be liable to conviction of the lesser offence; but if the accused is not
successful in disproving the absence of circumstances, the Court of law shall still have
to see whether the ingredient of criminal intention, that is, mens rea has been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is then that a reasonable
doubt created in the mind of the Court as to the defence plea shall lead to the inference
that the guilty intention has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and on this
ground the guilt of the accused as to the main offence shall be deemed not to have been
established beyond doubt and he shall be acquitted.

2.6.

That intention or the mental element in committing the crime is an essential

ingredient of culpable homicide. While intention is a very important element in all
crimes , it becomes crucial in the offence of culpable homicide , because it is the degree
of intention of the accused , which determines the degree of crime . In other words it is
the mental element of the accused alone, which is material to decide whether a
particular act is culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.9 Whether there is inetention or not is a question of the fact10. And
it is submitted before the Honble Court that the facts stated itself speaks that there was
no such intention on the part of the driver to kill any person and niether there was any
criminal knowledge.
The Guilt of the Accused is not proved Beyond Doubt

9 Jayraraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519

10 Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 6

Memorial For Appellant

2.7. That where the evidence produced by prosecution proves the case is beyond
reasonable doubt it is not a case where benefit of doubt should be given to the
accused.11The golden rule stating the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt should
not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. 12
Doubts would be reasonable when they are free from a seat for abstract speculation. 13
That the offence in this case is substantially proved by circumstantial evidence, which is
proved link after link, forged firmly by a credible testimony forming a strong chain of
guilt binding the accused.14

2.8. The basic requirement in cases of circumstantial evidence is that the chain of
circumstances must be complete; in a case of any missing link no basis for conviction
can be formed15. In the present matter, the circumstantial evidences do not form proper
chain of evidence and there are contradictions in the story of prosecution and the
consequences evolved out of the incident.

The Circumstantial Evidence do proves the Guilt of the Accused

2.9. That the age old principle as already explained in the landmark judgment of
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 16was recently reiterated in Pawan Mandal v.

11 Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 Cr. L. J 2190; Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R
2000 S.C.3649.
12 Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 489 (492-93)
13 Glanville Williams, The Mathematics of Proof-II": Cri Law Review, Sweet and Maxwell,
p. 340 (342), 1979.
14 Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1974 Cr LJ 1249.
15 Anjus Dundung vs State of Jharkhand 2004(4) crimes 136 (SC)
16 AIR 1952 S.C.343.
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 7

Memorial For Appellant

State of Punjab.17 It was stated that firstly, the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is drawn should be fully established. 18 Secondly, the facts so established should
be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except accused is guilty.19 Thirdly, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.20 Fourthly, they should
exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved 21 and lastly, there must be a chain
of evidence22 so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability, the act must have been done by the accused.23 Thus, the circumstantial
evidence and facts of the case taken in totality24 admit the guilt of the accused.25
2.10. That in the present matter all the circumstantial evidences and statements of witnesses
do not corroborates the accusation of prosecution. The matter of speed of bus should be
dealt by the expert opinion and the role of precautions and caution taken up by the
teachers when the students were crossing the road , from the place where there was no
17 2010 (1) RCR (Cri) 274 (P&H) (DB).
18 Sharda Birchand v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1984 S.C.1682; Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan
Dia v State of Haryana, 2006 (3) RCR (Cri).
19 Prakash Bicholkar v. State, 1981 Cr.L.J. 440 at p. 441 (Goa).
20 Nikunja Roy v. State, 1992 (Cal.) Cr.L.R. 366; Ram Nand v.State of H.P, A.I.R 1981 S.C.
738.
21 Gambir v.State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 S.C.C 351: A.I.R 1982 S.C 1157.
22 Chandrabhan Srivastav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 M.P.L.J. 340 at p. 344.
23 Kusum Ankama Rao v.State of A.P, A.I.R 2008 S.C. 2819.
24 Ram Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 Cr.L.J. 298; Erabhadhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka, 1983 (1) Crimes 784, Hussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 33.
25 Govinda Reddy, 1960 S.C. 29.
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 8

Memorial For Appellant

pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing should be examined properly and with strict
adherence to the. These chains of evidence do not prove the hypothesis of guilt,
moreover, beyond reasonable doubt and hence making accused guilty on the charges of
murder will result in grave miscarriage of justice

The Evidentiary value of Circumstantial Evidence Proves the Hypothesis of Guilt.

2.11. That these records are not sufficient to prove the hypothesis of the guilt. Therefore,
the evidence of witness is not sufficient to convict 26 the accused since their guilt is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.27 In the case of Deepak C. Patil v. State of
Maharashtra28, it was declared that in a case of circumstantial evidence there may be no
direct evidence to prove the manner of assault or actual participation of an accused in
assault on the deceased resulting in his death but if the circumstantial evidence is
conclusive, a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence may be recorded.

29

in

the presnt matter the evidences are not conclusive , they are of subjective nature and
based on mere perception of the eye witnesses.
2.12.

That a guilty intention or knowledge is thus essential to the offence under this

section. That the intention is always a question of fact and the fact that the accused did
not intend to cause the injury he did, may be a mitigating factor. In Gurmail Singh v
State of Punjab30 and Kashi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh31 where the Conviction
was done under 302, the Honble court converted the conviction from 302 to 304,
26 Vaidivelu Thelvar v.State of Madras, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 614 at p. 619, 620; Pema Duptar
v.State, 1981 Cr. L. J. 276.
27 Nga Po Nayan v.Emperor, A.I.R 1937 Rang; Shiwaji Saherbrao Bode v.State of
Maharashtra 1973 CAR 410 S.C.
28 Deepak C. Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (2) Apex Cri 552 (S.C.).
29 Bimal Indwar v. State of Assam, 1982 Cr. L. J. 1804 at p. 1805, 1806 (Gau).
30 AIR 1982 SC 1466
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 9

Memorial For Appellant

stating that there was no evidence to show that the accused intended to cause the injury
he inflicted.
2.13.

That in Sanjeev v. State of Haryana 32It is only either intention or knowledge on the

part of the accused which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable
homicide - In order to read either intention or knowledge, the courts have to examine
the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the
accused.

31 AIR 2001 SC 2002

32 2015 STPL(Web) 133 SC
Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 10

Memorial For Appellant

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is humbly prayed
before the Honble Court to adjudge and declare:-

a. That impugned order of session court be set aside

b. That the appellant be acquitted.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Counsel for the Appellant)

Rayat & Bahra College of Law

Page 11