TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Topic Pg. No.

1. I,IST OF ABBREVIATIONS (i)

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS REFERRED ( ii)

II. CASES CITED (ii)

III. DICTIONARIES REFEFRED (iii)

IV. STATUTES REFERREI) (iv)

V. WEBLINKS REFERRED (ivi

3. STATEMENT OF .ILJRISDICTION (r',t

1t 4. STATEMtrNT OF FACTS ( 1)
{
I
a't 5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES , ri
I
6, STIMMARY OF ARGUMENTS (-l )

7. ARGUMEN'IS ADVANCED (5- i 6)

l. Whether the Accused is liable under Section 301 and 301 of the I.P.C'l

1.1 Whether the Accused acted in private defence?

1.2 Whether the Accused acted in sudden ad grave provocation?

1.3 Whether the act of the Accused was an accident?

2. Whether the information received lrom the Accused as to the discovery of the iron rocl

is evident to cause his Conviction?

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC?

S PR{\'Eru RELIEF CLAIMED (r'i )

t,

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

t A.I.R. - All India Reporters

AC - Appeal Cases

r Cr. P.C- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

E.g. - Example

L Ed.- Edition

L F.I.R - First Information Report

HC - High Court

Hon'ble - Honorable

i.e. - that is

L- IPC- Indian Penal Code

t
[--'
Ltd. - limited

t o M.P- Madhya Pradesh

t
Mad. - Madras

Ors. * Others

P & H- Punjab and Haryana

Pg. - Page

o SC - Supreme Court

o SCC - Supreme Court Cases

Sec. - Section

u/s - Under Section

v. - Versus
Vol. - Volume

\IFMORIAI, ON R}"HAI,F' f)r. THF., D[' 'FNCT'

If
H
LI
I-T
H INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ilH BOOKS REFERRED

B.R. Sharma, Scientific Criminol Investigation, (2010).

,H Batuk Lal, Law OfEvidence (5tr, Edition, 201 0)

H
H C.D. Field's. Law, on Burden of prottJ, (3,a Edition. 2O1q).

Dr. H. P. Gupta, Law o/'Et,idence, (yol2,3.oEdition.20l2)

H
G.C. Sarkar's, Crtmmentary On The Indian Penal CorJe ^ I 860, (3,0 Edition. 201 I ).

K. D. Gaur. commentar.y on the Intlion penal Code, (2naEditi.n,20r3).

K.D. Gaur. Leading cases on Criminal Law, (2015).

M.A.. Rashid, supreme ctourt Guidelines ond precedents, (2orr).

P.S. Varma. Murder Trials, (2008).

H Prof S.N. Mishra. Indiun penal Code, (lgtr, Edition, 2012).

ti
-1
Ratan Lal

Ratan Lal
& Dhirajlal. Lotr oJ Crinre.r, (Vol 2. 25tn Edition, reprint 2005).

& Dhirajlal, Lav,O/'Eticlenc.e (23,aEdition 2013)

;-a
u
l--_I
Sarkar andEjaz. Lay, of Evidence. (6*Edition. 2006).

Sarkar's, Contmentary'on the Inclian Penal Cotte, 1860 (Vol 2. 3ro Eclitiorr. 201 1)
[.1
ll-J
Sarkar's, commentary on the Indian penal code, lB60 (vol 3. 3ra Edition. 201 1),

C {SES CITED

l
o _-lntjad Khanv. State AIR 1952 SC 165.
, Bachtfordv. Queen (1988) 1 AC 130 pC.
t BJtoit'cr y. Srate q/-M.p. AIR 1996 SC 3373.
o Blttutct Singh y. State of Bihar" t9g0 BLJ 379 pat.
_-l . ).i/'ntittder y Stote of H.p. 2002 Cri LJ 4302.

J o _,,',;n Singh \-ath y. State of Assam, l97g CrLJ (NOC) I0 (Gau).

 Earabhu Drappa v. State o.f Karnataka. AIR 1983 SC 446.
l G.V.S Subbrayanam v. Stare o"f A.P.. AIR 1970 SC 1079.

t- Guedeo Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 1996 CrLJ 1270 Raj.

i-.- Hffittddinv. state. AIR 1957 ALL377.

I Hirtt Singh v. State o.f'Bihor. AIR 1972 SC 244.

-l Inre Venkanna, AIR 1948 Mad.61.

Jqi Deviv. State of Punjab. AIR 1963 SC 612.

a Krishnan Udayan v. State of Kerala.197l KerLT 604.
a Laxman Singh v. Poonam Singh AIR 2003 SC 3204
a Mctskandar Ali v. State of Assctnt 1995 Cri LJ 1900 Gau.
a Md. Ina1,s1\ullaht,. State oJ-l,Iaharushtra. AIR i976 SC 483;
a Mokul lrrushyo v. Stare" (1895) 7 WR (.Cr) 27.
Moti Singh v. State of Maharastra, 2002 SCC 494.
l{okul }r;ushyo v. State (1867) 7 WR27.
Puran Singh v. Emperor AIR 1L)47 Patna 162
Purna Chondro l{oik y. State o.f Oriss,a, 1974 CutLT 233.
Shqnti Sarup v. Stare.2003 ALL l8-+.
o State of Bihar v. ,4njani ('hout{hurr 1985 BLJ 531 Pat.
a State of M"P. v. Rawa Ram.(1985) 1 Crimes 80 (IVIP). N4.P.
a Stare of Puniab v. Buta Singh AIR 1991 SC 1316
a State of rJ.P. v. Ram Swaroop, AIR 1971 1570.
O vidhya singh v. state o.f M P. AIR 1971 SC 1857.
a Vinod Kumar And Ors v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi). on 30'r'Mar'. 2016.

F a Vi,shwanarhv. Stote o.f U.P. AiR 1960 SC 67.

a Yusuf v. State of U.P. 1973 CrLl 1220.

l--
F- DICTIONARIES REFERRED
o Garner, Black's Law Dictionary, Ttt Edition, West Group.

. Greenberg & Millbrook Eds, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases , Yol. 2,

F Sweet & Maxwell,2000

 Rutherford, Leslie; Bone, S., Eds., Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition
(Rep. 2003), Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

o Stroud's, Judicial Dictionary, 6t Edition, Green Beng & Millbrook.

STATUTES REFBRRBD
o Indian Evidence Act,1872.
o Indian Penal Code, 1860.
o The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873.

WEBLINKS REFERRED
o http://www.indiankanoon.com
o http://www.lawyersclubindia.com
o http://www.lexisnexis.com
. http://www.manupatra.com

{
I
Ii
I
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court is vested with the jurisdiction to try the instant
matter under Section 177
read with Section 209 of the code of criminal procedure,
1973.

Section 177. -Ordinary place of inquiry ancl trial

Every olJbnce shall orclinarily be incluirecl inlancl
rrietl b1. a Cotu.t tt,lhin y,hose loc:a!
.juris'diction it v;as committed.'
section 209' -Commitment of case to Court of session when offence is triable exclusively
bv il.-
LYhen in a cqse instituted on a police report or otherv'ise,
the ctccused appears or is b*tught
be-fore the Magistrate ancl it appears to the
Magistrcfie that the olJbnce is triable exclusivelv
by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit, ofier contplying with lhe proti.sions
of section 207 or section 20g, as the case
may be' the case to the ()our/ o/ .\ession. cttcl subject
to the provisions of this code relating to
hail, remand the accusetl to custoc$ until comntitment has been ntade,.J
'uch
b) subiect to the provisions of this Cocle relating to bail, remancl the accusecl
to custodv
during, and until the conclusion o.f, the trial;
k) send to that Court the recorcl oJ the case and
the doc'untents ancl article.s,
i/ an),. tt,hich are
to be produced in evidence,.

td) notify the Public Prosecutor oJthe commitment of the

case to the c'ourt ol Session.'

=?
_l
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Indraprastha College of Education" is an Educational Institution in Delhi. This is

a multi faculty institution with strength of 3000 students at its campus. There was
great enthusiasm in the Students' Organization to content elections in the College
General Body Election.
2. That the main contest u,as betu,een Indraprastha Communist Part1,. (ICP) and
Indraprastha Socialist Party (ISP). Both the groups u'orked hard to secure students'
support and tireir votes. Mukesh Singh $-as the candidate for the Presidentship from
the ICP. He was also having the supporl of a National Poiitical Part,v. Therefore. that
Pafiy's prestige was also involved in the success of this candidate.
J. That the candidate from ISP, Rahul was quite popular amongst the students for his
honesty, integrity and always been working for students' welfare.
4. 'Ihat after a month long campaign. the elections were held on 16tl' January 2017.
Casting of vote went on peacefulll'. The result was declared on 18th January 2A17 and,
Mukesh Singh \\'on the elections b-v a margin of just two votes. Wave of joy went
around in the Indraprastha Communist Parr1,.
5. That Indraprastha Socialist Partr uas disappointed and was sensing that victory of
Mukesh was only due to mone\.flori and r"rnfair practices adopted bv Mukesh.
>t*

6. That On 20'h January 2017, at about 7:00 PN,I at the College cateteria \4ukesh in
invited Rahul to his dinner party. Rahul flatlr. refused the invitation b1 sa,r ing that he
will never attend a party hosted by a forged person.

7. That Mukesh insisted by explaining to him. "Let us forget our past animosities and
work for the welfare of the students together" but Rahul again said "No! I do not wish
to join your dinner party as I know you have won the elections by fraudulent means. I
w'ill not go to the party of a scoundrel."
8. That at this Mukesh got annoyed and felt insulted n the public. He told Rahul "You
know'that I can adopt any means for r,l.hat I want". Rahul left the cafeteria by saying;
"Hell u,ith you" Rahul left the cafeteria and went away with his friend Sanjay.
 ---"

9. That at about 8:30 PM Sanjay drove out in his Jeep from the parking area with Rahul
seated in the jeep beside him. When their jeep was passing through the main gate of
the college, I\4ukesh and his friend Sameer were standing in w.ait for them.
10. That Mukesh was having a pistol in his hands. Mukesh signated Sanjay to stop the
vehicle but Rahul told him not to stop there. Then. Mukesh fired in the air. Rahul
asked Sanjay to driver fast. Mukesh and Sameer chased the jeep on their bike with
Sameer driving and Mukesh riding the pillion.

11. That Mukesh fired indiscriminately u,hile chasing the jeep. One bullet hit Sanjay in
his riglrt upper arm. Rahul asked Sanjal, to stop the vehicle and got down from the
jeep. Sameer stopped the bike where Rahui was standing. Mukesh
-eot off the bike
tried to shoot at Rahul. But he could not as there u'as no caltriclge in the pistol.
12.'fhat then Rahul took out an iron rod out of jeep and aimed a hit at Vlukesh. But
Mukesh ducked and the rod fell on the head of Sameer w-ho was sitting on his bike

.iust next to Mukesh.

13. That Sameer started bleeding profusely and t-ell unconscious. Both Rahul and Sanjay

left the scene immediatelv. Mukesh took Sameer to hospital. Sameer died after 12
hours in the hospital.
***
14.'fhat a case was registered against Rahul under section 302 read with Section 301 of
the Indian Penal Code. 1860. Post monem report disclosed the cause of death rvas
head injury which was ante mofiem in nature. Inresti-sating officer recor-ered the iron

rod used by Rahul from a pond near u-here crime took place. upon inlormation gir.en
by Rahul. while in police custodl.
1 5. That the State approached this l{on'ble Court ro seek justice.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
>{
.-1
1. Whether the Accused is liable under Section 302 and 301 of the I.P.C?
*-l
1.1 Whether the Accused acted in private defence?

H 1.2 Whether the Accused acted in sudden ad grave provocation?

1.3 Whether the act of the Accused \\-as an accident?

il 2. Whether the information received from the Accused as to the discor.ery of the iron rod

is evident to cause his Conviction?

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC?

H
,=
i-l
-

H
H
 SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

l.WhethertheAccusedi.e.Rahutisliableundersection30land3020fl'P'C?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that without an iota of doubt the
did not had an
Accused is not liable under Section 302 rlw Section 301 , IPC, as the Accused
as his act was done in pursuance of right of private defence [A.1],
his act
intention to kill
[A],
was an outcome of sudden and grave provocation [A.2], his act was a result
of an accident
IPC [B].
[A.3] and thus makes him not liable under section 301 of

Z. Whether the information received from the Accused as to the discovery of the
iron rod is evident to cause his Conviction?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the information received by the
value, which
accused cannot be used against him and therefore does not carry any evidentiary

will be proved having regard to the essential requirements of this section.

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC, 1860?

It is most humbly submitted that the accused cannot be charged under Section 304 of IPC as
but was
an altemative option. as though. his act u.as out of sudden and grave provocation
exercise in right of private defence. shich is evident from the following
circumstantial

evidences-

1. Mukesh was waiting for Rahul at the main gate of the college armed u ith a hand gun'
2. ile fired indiscriminately at Rahul and Sanjal'uhile lolloriing thel.n-
3. A bullet hit Sanjay at his right upper arm,
4. Mukesh w'as aiming a fire at Rahul,
5. Looking at this Rahul acted in the self defence of himself and his friend, Sanjay.
:
--

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Accused i.e. Rahul is liable under Section 30L and 302 of I.P.C?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that without an iota of doubt the
Accused is not liable under Section 302 rlw Section 301 , IPC, as the Accused did not had
an intention to kill [A], as his act was done in pursuance of right of private defence
[A.11, his act was an outcome of sudden and grave provocation 1A.21, his act was a
result of an accident [A.3] and thus makes him not liable under section 301 of IPC [B].

tAl Intention to kill", an essential requirement to constitute an offence under Section

3O2.IPC

It is an established fact that to bring a case under the ambit of Section 302, essentiais of
Section 300 have to be complying with. One such essential is to prove ill Intention of the
Accused or Mens Rea, v'rhich is the heart and soul to constitute any criminal charge against an
Accused. However in the instant case there was no intention to cause death of the deceased
(Sameer) as the act of the Accused was in pursuance of exercising right of private defence.

[A.1] The act of the Accused was done in pursuance of riqht of private defence

f
T
It is most humbly submiued that the facts of the case make the situation crystal clear as to
why the Accused took recourse to attack Mukesh with an iron rod. The facts elucidate that it
was Mukesh who started creating vulnerable risk to the life of Rahul and his friend Sanjay.

When Rahul and his friend got off from the jeep and confronted Mukesh he saw him aiming a
fire at Rahul and as Rahul find that space to protect himself he took an iron rod from his jeep
and aimed a hit at Mukesh so as to protect his life.
Therefore, the right ofprivate defence envisaged under Section 961 is correctly based on the
instinct of self preservation. The instinct of self preservation is indomitable in a human being
and this instinct has been recognized as a lawful defence in the laws of all civilized countries.

If the danger to the body or property is there to a citizen, he need not flee away. He is entitled

to hold his ground and strike back in defence.

Section 96 in The Indian Penal Code- Things done in private detbnce. Nothine is an ofl'ence rvhich is dt-.n;
 --E
-.-

The common law recognizes that there are many circumstances

in which one person may
inflict violence upon another without committing a crime. The cornmon
law has always
recognized the right of a person to protect himself from
attack and to act in def'ence of others
L\.
and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing
so. If no more force is used than is
reasonable to repel the attack such forces is
not unlau.ful and no crime is committed. The
person about be attacked does not have to
wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire
the first shot' circumstances may justif,v a pre-emptil,e
strike.2

Section 96 IPC provides that nothing is an

offence rvhich is done in exercise of the right
of
private defence and the tentacles of Section
97 to 106 thereof la1-s dou.n the extent and
limitation of such rights. From the plain reading
of the above sectio, it is manif.est that such
right can be exercised to repel unlawiul aggression.
The right of seif clefence is a very
valuable right' It has a social purpose.3 Therefore,
the act that has been committecl by Rahul
was not an outcome of ill intention rather he
was afraid that Mukesh might be ca*1,-ing some
extra cartridges with him u'hich may cause death
of Rahul, so bef-ore Mukesh could do more
*--- harm to Rahul and Sanjay, Rahul acted in his
IE self defence.

r-
E
I
The Apex court has held in a case where prosecution
pafty armed rvith various w-eapons rvent
\\ to cut the crop forciblr'. assaulted the owner of the plot.
T ancl the accused on the side of the
owner gave a fatal bhala blou resulting in the
5t- death of the deceased. the accusect dicl not

f- exceed the right of private defence.l

i)
t--
Similarli" in a case $-here the accused unarmed had
body' had reasonable appreciation to his lrre. qe'e
receired tuo bloris on rital parls of liis
a single bro* to the cleceased resultins i,
his death" the accused did not exceed rris right j
ol serf detence.

lA.1.1l

TAE FORCE USEI)

It is humbly submitted before this Hon,ble Court that the

contention as to the fact by the
Defence that accused exceeded his right of private
defence or disputation over the point of
extent of necessity of the harm caused, the Courts
in India have time and again opined and

-. Bac'lorlbrd v. Queen (198g) 1 AC 130 pC.

' I'ictht'a Singh v. State of M.p. AIR
1971 SC 1857.
-_
Hu.u Sittgh v. State of Bihar,AIR 1972 SC 244.
-{li v. Srate of Assam 199-5 CrLJ 1900 GAu DB: Guedeo Singh
!t::,t{:;:,rr, v. Stcrte ctf Rajasrhan, 1996 crl,.r
-I--5

a'-

held that there is no golden scale to measure the extent or necessity to exercise this right as in
the time of peril and danger a human mind cannot adjudge this degree.

The law does not require a law abiding citizento behave like a coward when confronted with
6
an imminent unlawfrrl aggression.

Also, it is for such a situation that it is often said that one cannot weigh in golden scales what
maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right of private defence.T However
a person in fear of his life is not expected to modulate his defence step by step or tier by tier.8

The Court in State of Punjab v. Buta Singhe held that a person who is apprehending death or
bodily injury cannot r.l'eigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of rnoment.
the number of injuries required to disarm tire assailants who \\,-ere armed with weapons. In
moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the
parties to presen,e composure and use only so much force in retaliation commensurate rvith

the danger apprehended to him where assault is eminent by use of force, it would be larvful to
repel the force in self defence and the right of private defence commences as soon as the
threat becomes so imminent. Due weightage has to be given to. and hyper technical approach
ha to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and
keeping in vieu the notmal human conduct and reaction. where self preservation is the
paramount consideration.

Again in Laxman Singh t'. Poonam Singhtj it has been held by the Supreme Clourl that non-
explanations of the injuries sustained b1 the accused at about the time of occunence or in the
course of altercation is a I err importallr circumstance. But mere non-erplanation of the
injuries by the procesution mav not al-tect the prosecution case in a1l cases. This principle
applies to cases where the injuries sustained br the accused are minor and superficial or
where the evidence is so clear and cogent. so independent. and disinterested, so probable.
consistent and creditworthy, that it far outw.eighs the effect of omission on the part of the
prosecution to explain the injuries.

' G I.S Subbra),anarn ,-. State ,l'A.P., AIR 1970 SC 1079.

. -lntiad Khan t. Slale AIR I 952 SC 1 65.
' Sr,tte ct| L.P. t:. Rorn Sv,aroop, AIR I974 1570.
\lR 1991 SC 1316
\lR 1003 SC 320.1
 In the exercise of his right, it rrv'ould not be fair to require that he should modulate his defence
step by step, according to the attack. before there is reason to believe that the attack is over.11

Relying on this case an Allahabad case held while it is true that law does not expect from the
person. whose life is placed in danger. to u,eigh with nice precision. the extent and the degree

tl
lr
l.\-
of the force which he employs in his defence.

Such a question fell for consideration again in Supreme Courl and the Courl point out that
Ir w-hile exercising the right of private defence it is not possible for
!\
II
an average person whose
mental excitement could be better imagined than described. to weight the position in golden
l.-.- scales and it w-as w'ell-nigh inipossible for the person placecl in the position to take a calm and
objective view expected in the detached atmosphere of the Cour1. and calculate u,ith
arithmetical precision to how much lorce would efi-ectively sen,e the purpose of self defence
and when to stop.12

When a right of private defence accrues in fbvour of a person. it is hardly possible to expect
that he ought to measure his blows or select a particular part of the body or the weapon. The
mental equilibrium of the person entitled to private defence cannot be weighted in a
l-l
goldsmith's case scale.

When the prosecution partv has been held to be aggressor who had come armed and w-ho had
inflicted serious injuries on four persons of the accused side" it is surprising that the court
should hold the appellant exceeded the right of private defence. It is ver,v difficult for a
person who is trying to save his life to w'eigh his right on a golden scale.la lr,- I'ishrancrth v.

State oJ' LI.P.t5 in uhich Apex coufi has held that the ;:ight of private ciefence arises if there
\vas an offence affbcting the human bod1,.

Although the right of private defence ends rl.ith the necessitl fbr it. altirough right of privare
defence is exhausted its moment the agsressor becomes disabled or helplessl6 in the leacling
Supreme Court decision on a point. the Court pointed out that in judging the conduct of a
person who proves that he had a right of private defence, allowance has necessarily to be
made for his feelings at the relevant time. He is faced with an assault which causes a

t.t.Jai
Deyi r'. S/are of Punjab,AIR 1963 SC 612.
'- G. I .S Subbral'ananr v. State of A.p., AIR 1970 SC 1079.
'.'. Dhan Singh Nath v. State of issam,l978 CrLJ (NOC) l0 (Gau).
tt Bhuno
Singh v. State of Biiar, 1980 BLJ 379 pat.
'' AIR 1960 sc 67.
l;: c,
 reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt and that inevitably creates in
his mind
some excitement and confusion.

lA.1.2l

Ifthe accused who sustained injury takes

the prea of private defence, the burden
is on the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt _

[i]'That he did not sustain injuT in the

same incident and
[ii] That if he sustained injury in
the same occurrence the assault gi'n en
b1' him in reprisal was out of proportion
supposed danger' in such a case
to the
the burden on the accused to prove
his plea, if any. is by
preponderance of probabilities.
and not be1'o,d reasonabre cloubt.,7
The burden of proof to
prove right of private defence rvas
not as heavy on accused as the burden
on prlesssrtion to
prove its case.18

The accused need not establish the

piea to the hilt and may discharge
his onus by establishing
a mere predominance of probabilities
either by laying basis for that plea
in the cross
examination of the prosecution w.itnesses
or by adducing defence evidence.ie

Even if the accused person fails to establish the

right it was still open to the coul-t to
take the
plea r-rf the accused into account
alon-s ri ith the prosecution evidence
and then
come to
decision that whether the prosecution
has succeeded in proving was
case beyond reasonabre
doubt or not.20

Ifa person goes r.lith a gun to kill another.

the intended r.ictim is entitled to
act in self
defence. Also, the right of prir are
deflnce of bodl extends to calrsing
even death of
aggressor.2l

Section 97 of IPC takes a step fu.ther

and wet o, explaining the extent
of this right by
providing that erzery person has
a right to defend his oi,u.n body anrJ
the body of any other
against any offence that affects human
body.

Furthermore' the Right of Private

Defence is elucidated under Section
10022 Ipc. which
confers the right of private defence
of the body up to the voluntary causing
of death or of any
-.
\lttskanclat.Ali t;. State ctf Assam
1995 Cri LJ 1900 Gau.
' Durnlnder t, State ct/.H p.2002 CriLJ 43(I-.
Bii.tit.a y. srare qf M p.AlR 1996
sc::z:,
.-ar,r,, ,ti'Bihar t:.-Anjani Chouclltary
, lqSs gf: 53 I pat.
.\.1r)tri SLtt.t/p r,. State. 2003 ALL
2g4.
 other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions
the exercise of the right be of any
of the acts as may be reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt
be the
consequence of such assault.23

lA.1.3l

It is peculiar to note that laws in India

il- faced with great peril to his life, consequently, one
have provided complete safeguard to a person

such example of this tool shed is Section

who is

100 of IPC which gives immense power to a person

to exercise his right of private defence to
an extent ofeven causing death ofthe aggressor.

Following descriptions have been enumerated under

this Section when this right can be
exercised' one such situation is when an assault
is such that reasonably causes apprehension
that death will otherwise be the consequence of
such assault2a. Having regard to the facts of
the case, there is no jot of doubt that abullet fired
from a pistol is sufficient in the ordinary
=-, course of nature to cause death and so as to avoid
such situation Rahul acted in the private
n-+ defence of himself and his friend Sanjay.

i--1 lA.1.4l Nature of Iniury inflicted

L1
-t It is most humbll' submitted before this Hon'ble court
!--
= -:{I that the nature of injury inflicted upon
= the victim is essential so as to constitute the criminal
=\ intention of the Accused. In the instant
!--t case' the w-eapon used is an iron rod. As per
a recent Supreme court judgment. it .*.as heltl
=d
-l
=Y
that as far as the nature olueapon used in the
commission of the offence is concemed. it has
emerged that the nature of the \\eapons used
i.e. an iron rod a,d an iron pipe are not as

il;-j
=\ deadly as a knife or a gun and are commonlr, ar ailable.r5

]rSectionl00inTheIndianPenalCode..IrLhentherighto,,.,'u..ffi.',**
N ffii,iii:j,H::: ir,. ..,t.i.,rons mentioned in the rast preceding

l
L.ff:,-" to the voluntarv causing
section' 3::1Tj"::pl"^l,^::,:i,g1,1,a..
>{ (First)
- Such
of death or olanl oiher harm to the assairant, if the
the exercise^of the righibe orariy ortne offence
a.r..ipiion, hereinafter enumerated, namely:-
an assault as may..uronubll, cause the
T;lI:::t"tl;li:
upf..rr.rr;o, that death will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault:
tSecondly) an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen-sion
-Such that grievous hurt will otherwise be
the consequence ofsuch assault:
r thirdl) An assault with the intention of committing rape;
--.l )
Fourrhlr )-
I
-1
rF jnhll )
assault with the intention of gratif-ving
-An
An assault
un atural rust:
with the intention of kidnapping or abduct-ing;
S'rtr1r t--- An assault with the intention of wronglilly
confining--a person. uncler circumstances which
:;:strnabl) cause him to apprehend that he will be mav
rnubl. to ta'7e...ou.r. to the public
-1 ::.;.Se.
'. '. | : . .!.,islr r.. Sture ctf trf altarastra,
2002 SCC 4g4.
"rin*,i[r?.'ir,i
-1
.-
) , -, L'it.at,lrtt \aikt.. State ctf Orissa" 1974
CutLT 233.
' ' '\'."'i1i'it..1rtcl ors t', Sto/e (Govt of NCT of Delhi), on -r0,r,Ma,v" 2016.
il
= Therefore, the nature of the weapon used is sufficient
il to prove that the Accused never had an
= intention to kill Mukesh or Sameer.
=
il
* tA.2l A OF US
d
DG
PROVOCATION

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the

act thatwas done by the
Accused was not a result of ill intention as he
was the one who wants to save his and the life
of his friend Sanjay' It was entirely an outcome
of sudden ancl grave provocation which was
caused by Mukesh, as he followed their jeep
and fired indiscriminately on Rahul and
Sanjay,
which is evident from the factthatsanjay suffered
a bullet on his right upper arrn.

Therefore' the provocation that has been cased

was so raged and terrifying, that when Rahul
got off from the jeep along with Sanjay
he was so gravely provoked that he took
an iron rod
from his jeep and a hit it at Mukesh.

In view of Section 300 IPC even when act of a person

entailing death of another is
accompanied by any of the mens rea detailed
in any of the four clauses of Section 300 it is
not murder if there is grave and sudden provocation
emanating from the victim.

lA.2.1l

'furning
to section 300 IPC to obtain the benefit of Exception
1 it must be proved;

a- that the deceased injured the accused by acts or words and thus
causecl provocation :
b- that the pror.ocation should be such as to cause the reasonable man
to lose his power
of self-control and shor-rid ha'e actuall-v caused in
the accused a sudden and temporary
loss of self- control.r-

Under the exception the atrocitl of the otTence

is mitigatec if the act is done under the
influence of feeling which temporarily- takes
au ai' from the off'ender control over his
action.2s

The act must be done w.hilst the person doing it is deprir.ed of self control by grave and
sudden provocation' That is it must be done under the immediate impulse of provocation.2e

- Section 300 in The Indian Penal code-. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter
I is murder' if the act by which the death is excepted, culpable
- "i-^ricide
i_';r,trt;l .\ingh r.. State of Rajasthan^ tt. intention of causing death,
caused is done *itt-,
19,7 I CrLJ l50l
' i,, !t:n.rir L cla.on t,. Siate'of Kerala,l gi i lierf_f 60a
', ..:,,'\'l,tir.r., \.. Stete flg67) 7 wR 27
The test is of a reasonable person in circumstances w.hich give rise to grave and sudden
provocation.3o

It ought to be distinctly shown not that the act was done under the influence of some fbeling
which took away from the person doing it all control of his action br.rt that the feeling had an
adequate cause. In the absence of such proof the atrocity of the offence will not be mitigated
and the offender will not be able to escape the legal consequences of his act.31

ln order to avail the protection it is necessar-v that there should be provocation. What is
provocation is determined in each case b1' the court. Under Indian lau.provocation ma,v be
caused by words and gestures. It must be shown distinctll. that the act w.as done i,vhile the
person doing it was deprived of the pow'er of self control. It must have been done under
immediate impulse of the provocation.-r2 It must be of such nature as deprives a reasonable
man of his power of self control.

Therefore, the facts and circumstances of each case determines as to what is provocation.
However in the present case, without any qualm the provocation was envisaged by Mukesh,
which will be evident from the following series of circumstances;

1. Mukesh was waiting for Rahul and Sanjay at the main gate of the college.
2. Mukesh fired in air with his gun'
3. Mukesh and Sameer followed Rahul and Sanjay on a bike and fired indiscriminately.
4. A bullet hits Sanjay's upper arm.
5. Mukesh stop the bike where Rahul amd Sanal'. u,,as standing and aimed a fired at
Rahul.

These chains of occumences are sufficient in the ordinarl' course of nature to provoke the
prudency and intelligential of any person. Same happened lr,ith Rahul rryhen he iost his power

of self control while confronting the peril of death against him. w.hich made him acted out
sudden and grave provocation

tt )irse4r,. State oJ'Lt.p. l9i3 CrLJ 1220.

'_'^ Hc(ijuddin y. Srore. AIR 1957 ALL311,
'- .\[oktrl ,\'ushyo v. State^ ( 1895) 7 WR (Cr) 27.
L-

tA.3] ACT OF ACCUSED WAS AN ACCIDENT

Section 8033 of the IPC makes it explicitly clear that nothing is an offence which is done by
accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention
or knowledge, therefore, it has
been mentioned aforesaid that nothing is an offence
which is done in the light of private
defence' Hence, when the right to private defence
is lawful as per the laws in India, the hit by
Rahul as an outcome of the same right becomes
lawful and to the advent that the mishap felt
on the head of Sameer and he dies as a consequence,
makes it a case of Accident and not
murder, due to absence of criminal intention.

tBl

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that

the Accused is not liabie uncler
Section 301 of the Indian Penal code as to constitute
an offence under this Section follou,ing
essentials have to be comply i.l,ith_

1' If a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits

culpable homicicle,
2' whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause
death,
3' The culpable homicide will be of same description as it would have been when death
of the person. r'vhom he intended to die. have
been caused.

However' in the present case there was neither intention

nor criminal knowledge to kill either
Sameer or Mukesh as it rvas Mukesh and Sameer
who was standing in the wait of Rahul and
Sanjay car:rying a pistol along them. Therefore,
it was them who intended to kill Rahul and
not ihe Accused had it' Therefore- it is cordially
submitted that the essentials of this Secti.n"
as to existence of criminal itttent or klouledge
is not present in the instant case.

rr
Section 80 in The Indian Penal Code-Accident
in doing a lawful act.-Nothing is an offence which is
br accident or misfoftune, and without any crirninal inteniion done
or tnowteage in the doing of a lawful act in a
la*ful rnanner by lawfui means and with
[roper care and caution. Illustration A is at work with a hatchet: the
ll::.in:[H3,],j1t",ffi,:Hi::*,oing'uy. Here, if there was no wanr of proper caution
on the parr of \
 2' Whether the information received from the Accused as to the
discovery of the iron rod
is evident to cause his Conviction?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the information
received by the
accused cannot be used against him and therefore
does not carry anyevidentiary value, which
will be proved having regard to the essential requirements of
this section [A].

IAI

1' The fact must have been disco'"'ered in the consequence

of the information received
from the accused.
2. The person giving the information must be
accused of an off-ence.
-). He must be in custody of a police officer.
4. Before the statement is proved somebody must
depose that some articles were
discovered in consequence of the information
received frorn the accused.
5. T'he fact must be a relevant fact, that is
to say that it must relate to the commission of
crime.34

However in the present case, the fact is not relevant

as to the extent that it did not relate itself
to the commission of any crime, as the act of
the accused was an outcome of private defence.
and any act done in pursuance of private defence
is no offence or crime at all. The recc,verS,
ol'iron rod is immaterial as it lost its significance with
the absence of any crime ern the part of
the accused' Therefore the discovery' does not
relate itself to the commission of any ,.cri,r1e',
therefore' cannot be proved against the accused;
hence it neither caries evidentiary vaiue
with it nor does is sufficient to robe the accused under
the charges of mlirder. consequentll,.
the lact discovered is not releYant. r.vhich left it
inadmissibie as heid by.the Cour-t in pur.on
Singh v. Ernperorri by stating:

"The discovery oJ'the materiar

object i, qf rto rereyancy ta the questictn
v'hether the accused is guite qf'the ol/bnce
chargecl against him unless it is
connected with the offence. "

-rnlii{r!?;{:ttah v. state of Maharashtra, AtF te76 SC 483; Earabha

Drappa v. State of Karnatoko. AIR
=? ---'
AIR 1947 Patrrra 162; In re Venkanna,AlR l94g Mad.
61.
 Therelbre. the discovery of fact from the accused regarding the iron rod is not
relevant to the facts of the case as the act was a parl and parcel of private defence.
ri hicli u'as done without criminal intention or knowledge.

.J

|)

>J
 :
-
x U
l=
!=
l=
l=
I=
l=
l=
l:

3. Whether the accused can be charged under Section 304 of IPC, 1860?

It is most humbly submitted that the accused cannot be charged under Section 304 of IPC as
provocation but was
an alternative option, as though, his act was out of sudden and grave
exercise in right of private defence, which is evident from the following circumstantial
evidences-

1. Mukesh was waiting for Rahul at the main gate of the college armed with a hand
gun'
2. He fired indiscriminately at Rahul and Sanjay while following them,
3. A bullet hit Sanjay at his right upper ann,
4. Mukesh was aiming afte atRahul,
--1 5. Looking at this Rahul acted in the self defence of himself and his friend, Sanjay.
---{
Therefore any prudent person would do the same when he will be faced with such peril or
--{
risk to his life, as was done by Rahul. It is an established fact that law does not require a man
--J to run like a coward when faced with danger to his life and existence of laws on private
-'{ defence is sufficient proof of the same view.
:f Hence, though Rahul acted in sudden and grave provocation but ultimately it was to save two
-J lives against the danger created by Mukesh. As, nothing is an offence done in the pursuance
of exercising right of private defence, so, eventually, he could not be either robed under
Section 302, 304 or any other provision of IPC.
 PRAYER

Wherefore. in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
1. Acquit the accused under Section 302, IPC.

2. Acquit the accused under Section 301, IPC.

3. Declare the act of accused been done in private defence.

4. Declare the act of accused an accident

AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit. in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

s/d
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE