lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Memorial 9th Semester ballb

Legal Studies (Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |1

Team No. 10

Name: Akash Singh Raj

Course: [Link].B. (Hons.)
Semester: IX
Roll No. 201810301140063

Name: Asif Ansari

Course: [Link].B. (Hons.)
Semester: IX
Roll No. 201810301140016

Name: Praveet Dubey

Course: [Link].B. (Hons.)
Semester: IX
Roll No. 201810301140040

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENT

TOPIC PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

QUESTION OF LAW (ISSUE RAISED)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 ISSUE 1
 ISSUE 2
 ISSUE 3

PRAYER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
A./App. Appeal
AIR All India Reporter
All. Allahabad
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
Crl. Criminal
Dr. Doctor
Edn. / Ed. Edition / Editor
FIR First Information Report
Govt. Government
Hon`ble Honourable
Id. Ibid
I.P.C. Indian Penal Code
L.J. Law Journal
Mr. Mister
No. Number
HC High Court
Ors. Others
R. Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
Sd/ Signed
St. State
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
UOI Union Of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |4

V. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 STATUTES:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

 BOOKS:
1. S. N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code (22nd Ed., Central Law Publications, 2020).
2. C. K. Takwani & M.C. Takwani, Criminal Procedure (3rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2011).
3. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure (7th Ed., Eastern Book Company, 2021).
4. Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence (23rd Ed., Central Law Agency, 2020)
5. Dr. K. I. Vibhute, P S A. Pillai Criminal Law (11th Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur).
6. John Woodroffe, Commentaries on Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2009).
7. Justice C.K. Thakkar, Encyclopedia Law Lexicon, (Ashoka Law House, New
Delhi, 2010).
8. Justice GP Singh, Principles Of Statutory Interpretation (13th Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur).
9. K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law Criminology and Administration of Criminal Justice
(3rd Ed., Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2015).
10. K.D. Gaur, Commentary on the Indian Penal Code (2nd Ed., Universal Law
Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2013).
11. M.R. Mallick, R.K. Bag, A.N. Saha Criminal Reference (6th Ed., Eastern Law
House, 2009).
12. Modi Jaising, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, 2006).
13. R. P Kathuria`s, Law of Crimes and Criminology (3rd Ed., Vinod Publications,
2014).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |5

14. S.C. Sarkar, P.C. Sarkar & Sudipto Sarkar, The Code Of Criminal Procedure (11th
Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2015).
15. Underhill`s Criminal Evidence, Fifth Ed. Vol. I, page. 664.

 DYNAMIC LINK:
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
 CASE LAWS:
1. Om Prakash V. State of Punjab
2. State of Assam V. Abhinash
3. Rajesh Kumar V. Dharamvir
4. Machhi Singh V. State of Punjab
5. Achok Debbarma V. State of Tripura
6. Sumer Singh V. Surajbhan Singh & Others
7. Guru Basavaraj V. State of Karnataka
8. Naidu Rastogi V. State of Bihar
9. Suresh V. State of U.P.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |6

STATMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsels representing the defendant have endorsed their pleadings before
the Hon’ble High Court, Guwahat, under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in which the Hon`ble Court has the jurisdiction.
377. APPEAL BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AGAINST SENTENCE.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may in
any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court,
direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the
sentence on the ground of its inadequacy-
(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court”;
(c) in Sub-Section (3), for the words “the High Court”, the words “the Court
of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court” shall be substituted.

(2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by
the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency
empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other
than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy.

(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its
inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to
the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such
enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal
or for the reduction of the sentence.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376,
section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D,
section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |7

appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing
of such appeal.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the
present case are summarized as follows:

RELEVANT INCIDENT

A woman named Seema aged 22 years succumbed to injuries and Hospitalized

at a private hospital in Guwahat on June 1, 2018 due to multiple organ failure as
she had developed severe health issues due to swallowing acid. The incident
leading to the death of Seema occurred at Guwahat Railway Station on 1st May,
2018. The gruesome incident had set the local police on their heels as the man
who threw acid had concealed his face at the time of the attack. However,
investigation by Police, Guwahat Crime Branch, led to one Sanjay Sharma aged
26 years and his accomplice Mahesh Yadav aged 28 years who were both
neighbours of deceased Seema. Sanjay allegedly flung acid on Seema at the
Guwahat Railway Station when she was getting down from Rajdhani Express
from Siliguri. Thereafter, Sanjay boarded the same train back to his home at
Siliguri.

According to the police, Seema had secured a nursing job with the Gauhati
Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Guwahat. Sanjay Sharma was a
Hotel Management Graduate and despite his best efforts was unemployed.
Sanjay's parents often used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite
completing his education and always praised Seema because of her education
and career.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |8

Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used to tell
him about how Seema once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his
parents had ill-treated him for not being able to secure a job. Apart, they were in
all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good job in a government
hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and therefore could not
bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he should find Seema alone and
pressurise her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage proposal.
He, further, suggested Sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid in order to
pressurise her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema's face so as to
destroy her career.

To teach her a lesson, Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on April 30, 2018 as
soon as he came to know that Seema was leaving for Guwahat to join her new
nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same train taken by Seema
and her family members to Guwahat. On May 1, 2018, when Seema was getting
down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahat Railway Station,
Sanjay allegedly flung acid on her. It was Mahesh who helped Sanjay in
opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw the acid on her face.
Subsequently, both Mahesh and Sanjay fled away easily covering their faces.
Seema was taken to the hospital by her family members. The doctor
immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.

FIR was lodged by the Police and The Statement of Seema was recorded. A
case was registered against both the accused under Sections 302, 326B r/w
section 34 IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed
offender while Sanjay was arrested by police from his home at Siliguri and the
bottle of acid used in the crime, were seized from his possession. After
investigation, he was put to trial before the Sessions Court, at Guwahat where
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As per the charge sheet, Sanjay threw
concentrated Sulfuric Acid at Seema as he envied her career growth. The

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

Page |9

Sessions Court held that Sanjay could not explain the scars which he had
suffered as few drops of acid fell on his hands.

The Sessions Court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under sections
302 and 326B of Indian Penal Code 1860 and awarded him life imprisonment
and seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- respectively for the
offences. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

ISSUES RAISED
The following questions are presented before this Hon`ble court for adjudication
in the instant matter:

ISSUE I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE

UNDER SECTION 302 OF I.P.C.,1872?

ISSUE II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE

UNDER SECTION 326B READ WITH SEC. 34 OF
I.P.C.,1872?

ISSUE III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO GET

DEATH PENALTY?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 OF I.P.C.,1872?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused must be
convicted under sec. 302 of IPC the Accused-1 (Sanjay) threw the acid on
victim with the help of Accused 2 (Mahesh) which led to death of a victim
because of grievous injuries to the victim as said by the doctor at the hospital.

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE

UNDER SECTION 326B READ WITH SEC. 34 OF
I.P.C.,1872?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused must be
convicted under Section 326B read with Section 34 of I.P.C., 1872. The
Accused-1 (Sanjay) threw acid on victim with help of accused- 2 (Mahesh).
Accused-2 helps the accused-1 in opening the acid bottle and also provokes the
accused-1 for doing the same so the offenders are liable for the same
punishment as awarded by the court of session i.e. 7 years of imprisonment.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO GET DEATH

PENALTY?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 11

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused must be liable
to get death penalty as it is an appropriate punishment for murder and Acid
attack on a woman for two reasons.

First, the tests for awarding the death penalty have been fulfilled, these are: the
crime test, which deals with aggravating circumstances; the criminal test, which
pertains to mitigating circumstances; and the rarest of rare test. The crime test is
fulfilled as Mr. Sanjay has done the heinous offence as stated and is the rarest of
rare offence and these types of offence’s offenders should be punished with
death penalty only.

Secondly, the principle of sentencing will not be getting violated from it, as it is
necessary for the courts to respect legislative wisdom. Punishing Murderer with
death penalty is not grossly disproportionate, as the offender has done the
offence at a public place i.e. Railway Station, that laid to the public order
situation in the state.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE
UNDER SECTION 302 OF I.P.C.,1872?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused must be
convicted under section 302 of I.P.C. the Sanjay threw the Acid on victim with
the help of Mahesh which leads to the death of the victim.

According to the facts, accused (2) Mahesh motivates accused- 1 (Sanjay) to

commit the offence. Sanjay and Mahesh are childhood friend and used to tell
him about how Seema once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his
parents had ill-treated him for not being able to secure a job. Apart, they were in
all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good job in a government
hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and therefore could not
bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he should find Seema alone and
pressurise her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage proposal.
He, further, suggested Sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid in order to
pressurise her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema's face so as to
destroy her career.

The accused-2 treated accused- 1 as the younger brother and could not bear the
pain of accused 1 and suggested him that he should find victim alone and
teaches her a lesson. He further, suggested Sanjay to threaten the victim with
bottle of acid on April 30, 2019 as soon as he come to know that Seema was

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 13

leaving for Guwahat to join her new nursing job and he boarded, along with
Mahesh, the same train taken by Seema and her family members to Guwahat.
On May 1, 2018, when Seema was getting down from Rajdhani Express from
Siliguri at the Guwahat Railway Station, Sanjay allegedly flung acid on her. It
was Mahesh who helped Sanjay in opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly
threw the acid on her face. Subsequently, both Mahesh and Sanjay fled away
easily covering their faces. Seema was taken to the hospital by her family
members. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the
injuries were grievous. FIR was lodged by the Police and The Statement of
Seema was recorded. The death was caused during treatment because of the
grievous injuries with acid.

Murder as defined under section 300 of I.P.C. —Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder,

(Firstly) —if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or—

(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm
is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —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 death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
In the case of Om Prakash V. State of Punjab1 the essentials of Murder were
discussed, which are already discussed above.

1
AIR 1961 SC 843

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 14

Also, in the case of State of Assam V. Anhinash Dutta2 court stated that a
vindictive or malicious act by a person implies that the act has been done with
the motive of taking revenge and this was happened in the case in hand.
302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Similarly in case of Rajesh Kumar V. Dharamvir3, it was held by the Hon’ble

court that all the conditions of murder were satisfied and the accused was
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

In the case of Machhi Singh V. State of Punjab 4 3 Judge Bench observed that
in rarest of the rare cases when collective conscience of the community is
shocked to such extent that it expects infliction of the death penalty from the
holder od the judicial power, the court said that the community may entertain
such a sentiment in the following circumstances:

 The manner of the commission of the offence

 The motive for the commission of the offence
 The societal impact of the offence on the whole
 Facts and circumstances leading to the offence
 The vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the
offender
 Magnitude of Crime
 The Personality of the victim of the offence.

In the case of Achok Debharma V. State of U.P.5 It was ruled that for
awarding death penalty the crime test has to be fully satisfied and there should
be no mitigation circumstances favouring the accused, over and alone the rare
of rarest test.

2
AIR 1982 CrLJ 400
3
Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1990
4
AIR 1983 SC 957
5
(2014) 4 SCC 747

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 15

It is humbly submitted before this court that on May 1, 2018, when Seema was
getting down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahat Railway
Station, Sanjay threw the acid on the face of the victim with the help of Mahesh.
Because of acid attack by the above said persons the victim suffered many
grievous injuries. F.I.R. was lodged and the statement of victim was reordered
during the treatment the victim died because of grievous injuries.

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED RIGHTLY HELD LIABLE

UNDER SECTION 326B READ WITH SEC. 34 OF I.P.C.,1872?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the offenders must be
convicted under Sec. 326B R/W Sec. 34. Of I.P.C. As the Sanjay threw acid on
victim with help of Mahesh. Mahesh also helps the Sanjay in opening the acid
bottle and prior to this act also provokes to do the same.

According to the Facts, Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his
childhood friend and used to tell him about how Seema once rejected his
marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated him for not being
able to secure a job. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and therefore
could not bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he should find Seema
alone and pressurise her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage
proposal. He, further, suggested Sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid
in order to pressurise her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema's face
so as to destroy her career. Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on April 30, 2018 as
soon as he came to know that Seema was leaving for Guwahat to join her new
nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same train taken by Seema
and her family members to Guwahat. On May 1, 2018, when Seema was getting
down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahat Railway Station,
Sanjay allegedly flung acid on her. It was Mahesh who helped Sanjay in
opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw the acid on her face.
Subsequently, both Mahesh and Sanjay fled away easily covering their faces.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 16

According to Section 326B of Indian penal code, Voluntary throwing or

attempting to throw acid-

Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to

administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the
intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or
maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

In the case of Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh & others 6, while elaborating
on the duty of the Court while imposing sentence for an offence, it has been
ruled that it is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the
purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a
legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle that
should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be
proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. ln a way, it is an
obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail
the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the court’s accountability to remind
itself about its role and the reverence for the rule of law. It must evince the
rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral
propensity. The Court further held that if in the ultimate eventuate the proper
sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined
and law does not tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of
conscience abhors it. It was observed that the old saying “the law can hunt one’s
past; cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of
mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. The conception of
mercy has its own space but it cannot occupy the whole accommodation. While
dealing with grant of further compensation in lieu of sentence, the Court ruled:-
6
(2014) 7 SCC 323

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 17

“We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under
the Code would be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It
cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly
inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable warrant, for the Court
cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to
the cry of the society.

In the case of Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka7 held thus: - “In

operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each
case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused,
the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant
facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that
undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the
justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy
of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
1be courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but
also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment.” In the said case, the Court ultimately set aside the sentence
imposed by the High Court and restored that of the trial Judge, whereby he bad
convicted the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code - Acts done by several persons in furtherance

of common intention. - When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

7
(2012) 8 SCC 734

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 18

In Nandu Rastogi V. State of Bihar 8, To attract Section 34 IPC it is not

necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. It is enough if
it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in
furtherance thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts,
similar or diverse. The facts of this case are eloquent and the role played by Bal
Mukund Rastogi of preventing the prosecution witnesses from going to the
rescue of the deceased was the role played by him with a view to achieve the
ultimate objective of killing Shankar Rastogi. We, therefore, entertain no doubt
that all the five persons who came to the shop of the informant had a common
intention to commit the murder of Shankar Rastogi and they acted pursuant to a
pre-arranged plan. The facts clearly are consistent only with the hypothesis of
their acting in furtherance of a common intention. They have, therefore, rightly
been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

In Suresh vs. State of U.P. (Supra) wherein it has been observed that to attract
Section 34 PC two postulates are indispensable:

(1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not
by one person, but more than one person.

(2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission
of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of
all such persons. He also drew our attention to the discussion in the judgment
about the difference between a “common intention” and “similar intention”.

It has been observed by this Court that to attract the applicability of Section 34
of the Code the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed
a common intention which requires a pre-arranged plan, because before a man
can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have
been done in furtherance of the common intention. The Court observed:
“Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recognizes the principle of vicarious

8
2002 Cri. Lj. 4698 (S.C.)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 19

liability in criminal jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an

offence not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the
common intention. It is a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive
offence. The section gives statutory recognition to the commonsense principle
that if more than two persons intentionally do a thing jointly; it is just the same
as if each of them had done it individually. There is no gainsaying that a
common intention presupposes prior concert, which requires a preplanning plan
of the accused participating in an offence. Such preconcert or pre-planning may
develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the
crucial test is that such preconcert or preplanning may develop on the spot or
during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial develop on the
spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial test is that
such plan must precede the act constituting an offence. Common intention can
be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the
moment.

It’s submitted that accused 1 & 2 have common intention to commit the crime.
The accused-1 used to confine in accused-2, who was his childhood friend and
used to tell him about how victim once rejected his marriage proposal and also
how his parents had his him for not being able to secure a job. The accused-2
treated accused-1 as his younger brother and therefore could not bear the pain of
accused-I and suggested him that he should find Seema alone and pressurise her
not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage proposal. On April 30,
2019 accused-1 procured a bottle of acid. On May 1, 2019 when victim was
getting down from Rajdhani express at Guwahat railway station. The accused-1
threw the bottle of acid on the face of victim and accused-2 help the accused -1
for opening the acid bottle. Before the incident accused-2 abetted the accused-1
for acid attack on victim.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 20

In the present case Hon’ble session court awarded him life imprisonment and
seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000\-respectably for the offence.
Both the sentence was to run concurrently. I request to Hon’ble high court to
awarded death penalty to both accused.

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO GET DEATH

PENALTY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused must be
convicted under section 302, 326B r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. the Sanjay threw the
Acid on victim with the help of Mahesh which leads to the death of the victim.
So, for the above said offence we request to the Hon’ble Court to award death
penalty to the accused as they are convicted for such a said heinous offence.

In the case of Jagmohan singh v. State of U.P. 9 The five judges bench of the
Supreme Court, by a unanimous verdict, upheld the constitutional validity of
death penalty held that capital punishment was not violative of Articles 14, 19
and 21 and.

In this case the validity of death sentence was challenged on the ground that it
was violative of Articles 19 and 21 because it did not provide any procedure. It
was contended that the procedure prescribed under Cr. P.C. was confined only
to findings of guilt and not awarding death sentence.

The Supreme Court held that the choice of death sentence is done in accordance
with the procedure established by law. It was observed that the judge makes the

9
(1973) 1 SCC 20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 21

choice between capital sentence or imprisonment of life on the basis of

circumstances and facts and nature of crime brought on record during trial.

Rajendra Prasad vs. State of UP10

Justice Krishna Iyer empathetically stressed that death penalty is violative of

articles 14, 19 and 21.

He further said that to impose death penalty the two things must be required:

1. The special reason should be recorded for imposing death penalty in a case.

The death penalty must be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances.

Jagmohan Singh case laid down that discretion in the matter of sentencing is to
be exercised by the judge after balancing all the aggravated and mitigating
circumstances of the crime.

Phase 2 Doctrine of Rarest of rare (Shifting the focus from crime to criminal).

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab11

In which by a majority of 4 to 1 (Bhagwati J. dissenting) the five judges bench

of the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Rajendra Prasad. It
expressed the view that death penalty, as an alternative punishment for murder
is not unreasonable and hence not violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, because the public order contemplated by clauses (2) to
(4) of Article 19 is different from law and order and also enunciated the
principle of awarding death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases. Bhagwati J.
in his dissenting judgement observed that death penalty is not only
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 but also undesirable from
several points of view.

Sher Singh vs. State of Punjab12

10
(1979) 3 SCR 646
11
AIR 1980 SC 898
12
AIR 1983 SC 365

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 22

C.J. expressing the view of the three judges of The SC held that death sentence
is constitutionally valid and permissible within the constraints of the rule in
Bachan Singh. This has to be accepted as the law of the land.

Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat13

The Supreme Court asserted affirmatively that the constitution does not prohibit
death penalty.

Prayer
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited &
arguments advanced may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge & declare
that:

1. The Hon’ble court of session has rightly awarded the

punishment to the accused.
2. As the Accused did the rarest of rare case so award them a
death penalty.

And pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the
Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever
Pray.

13
AIR 1989 SC 142

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|61136624

P a g e | 23

On behalf of State

Sd/-
(Counsel for the Appellant)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF STATE

Downloaded by amira singh (singhamira005@[Link])