[C].

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa under
Article 132 and 134 of the Constitution of Amphissa. The Appellant most
humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme
Court of Amphissa.
 [D]. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On dated 25th Feb.2008, Miachael, aged 29, S/O- Late John, R/O-54/3-
New Ext. Apartment, Flemingo, and Jenny, Aged 24 yrs, D/O- Defrado,
R/O- Greater Ango Colony, Flemingo, were married according to their
religious rituals.

2. Their marital life was going smoothly. On some occasions they used to
have few verbal quarrels with each other but they reconciled soon after
the verbal fight.

3. Two years after Jenny gave birth to a baby girl on 4th Sep.2010. The girl
was named Jennifer. After few months of birth of Jennifer, victim
observed certain changes in the behaviour of respondent.

4. The respondent started behaving in a rude way and usually became

violent on very petty issues without any reason, after the birth of the
baby. Initially, victim did not took matter in serious way.

5. Victim took her husband Miachael to the psychiatrist Dr. Alfered (DW1).
The doctor advised Miachael to have control anger and to take certain
medicines. The doctor diagnosed him to be suffering from the first stage
of Bipolar Mood Disorder.

6. On 5th Dec.2010 at 11am, loud noise of fighting, crying and shouting was
coming from the house. On hearing the cry Daniel (PW3), neighbour of
Michael, went in the house and found the victim lying unconscious on the
floor pooled in blood with various injuries on her body. And saw Michael
hiding a 7inch Iron Axe in the garden.

7. That thereafter Daniel called the police and the victim was taken to
government hospital whereby she was treated by Dr. Andrew (PW2),
Respondent was arrested by police on the same day and was kept in
police custody.
8. On 6th Dec.2010, the victim regained her consciousness and her statement
was recorded by SHO Jaison (PW1) of Flemingo Police Station. In her
statement she told to the police that on 5th December at 10 am Michael
came home and started fighting with her in a violent way and when she
resisted Michael attacked him with axe kept in the garden.
 9. On 8th December Jenny died because of the injury in her lower abdomen
which proved fatal.

[Link] the basis of the statement of Daniel and the dying declaration of Jenny
FIR was lodged against Michael vide. 733/2010 in Flemingo police
station. Respondent was prosecuted under Section 302 of IPC for the
murder of Jenny. Final report was submitted on 3rd Feb.2011 in which
Michael was charged for murder of Jenny under section 302 of IPC. The
case (State of Pallaka vs. Michael) was tried by Session Court vide
Session Trial N0-57/2011.

[Link] Session Court found the respondent guilty for the Intentional murder
of the victim and convicted him under section 302 of IPC and sentenced
to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

[Link] Respondent feeling aggrieved by the said judgement of the Session

Court preferred an appeal before the High Court of Pallaka on dated 9th
October 2014 vide Criminal Appeal No-875/2014. The High Court
relying on the version of the doctor treating Respondent for Bipolar
Mood Disorder found that the Respondent, at the time of committing
crime was suffering from bithe legal and medical insanity and
accordingly the court acquitted the Respondent from the charges of
murder on dated 5th September 2016.

State of Pallaka preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of Amphissa

against the order of acquittal by the High Court of Pallaka on 17 th of November
2016.

The case of State of Pallaka vs. Michael is listed before the Divisional Bench of
Supreme Court of Amphissa for final hearing on 10th Jan.2017.

HENCE THE PRESENT MATTER RESTS BEFORE THIS

HONORABLE COURT
 [E]. ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether this appeal petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
2. Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate
the accused from liability of murder.
3. Whether the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defence
is at par with burden of proof on part of Prosecution.
 [F]. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether this appeal petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court?
It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa
that this appeal petition is maintainable in this Court under Article 132 &
134 of Constitutions of Amphissa. But the counsels would argue the case
on its merits.

[Link] sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate

the accused from liability of murder?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa that the
respondent has prima facie failed to prove that the statutory presumption of
absence of sane mind, bringing his case under sec.84 of the Indian Penal
Court ,1860. So also, he has failed to establish the fact that, at the time of
commission, he was under the influence of unsoundness of mind, which has
impaired his cognitive faculties to such an extent, that he was unable to know
the nature of his act.
[Link] the burden of proof of legal insanity on the part of Defence is at
par with burden of proof on part of Prosecution?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa, with

reference to the fact of this case, it is submitted that the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the plea of the accused
does not stand probable from the material on record.
 [G]. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether this appeal petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court?
It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Amphissa
that this appeal petition is maintainable in this Court under Article 132 &
134 of Constitution of Amphissa. But the counsels would argue the case
on its merits. Also the fact that the accused was acquitted of the charge of
murder sates aside this appeal.

Article 132 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as follows:

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or
final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil,
criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case
involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution.

Article 134 of The Constitution of Amphissa reads as follows:

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order
or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of
India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and
sentenced him to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused
person and sentenced him to death; or (c) certifies under article 134A that
the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such
provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause
 (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish
or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further
powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India
subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such
law.

The power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider and
general. It vests in the SC plenary jurisdiction in the matter of
entertaining and hearing appeals against:
i. Any judgement, decree, determination, or order,
ii. In any cause or matter,
iii. Passed or made by any court or tribunal

The appellant in the present case has filed the appeal under Article 132 and 134
as the High Court has acquitted the accused (respondent) for the offence of
murder and hence this appeal is maintainable.
2. Whether sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate
the accused from liability of murder?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that crux
of this instant matter rest solely on the determination of
one of the primary issue by this appellate court, i.e.,
whether Bipolar Mood Disorder can be taken as a plea of
insanity or unsoundness of mind as defined under Sec.84
of IPC, 1860, to neutralise the criminal liability.
Section 84 of IPC, 1860 States that “ Nothing is an offence
which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he is doing what either is
wrong or contrary to law.”