TEAM CODE: A6

TEAM CODE: A6

BEFORE
BEFORE
THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW
THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW

IN THE MATTER OF

IN THE MATTER OF

ABHINANDAN ...APPELLANT
ABHINANDAN ...APPELLANT

V.

V.

STATE RESPONDENT

STATE RESPONDENT
M E M OR A N D U M F I L E D O N B E H AL F O F A P PE L L ANT

M E M OR A N D U M F I L E D O N B E H AL F O F A P PE L L ANT
 T AB L E OF C O NT E NT S

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

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................ 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................ 9

I. THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER ........................... 9

A. The extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon in the instant case ............................ 9

B. The judicial confession cannot be relied upon in the instant case ................................... 10

C. The defence of ‘unsoundness of mind’ protects the Accused in the instant case ............ 10

II. Arguendo, even if the Accused is guilty of murder, a lenient punishment should be
pronounced in the instant case .................................................................................................. 13

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Page | 1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, A.I.R 1958 Pat. 190 ............................................................... 13
Mohan Singh Balwant Singh v. State, A.I.R 1965 Punj 291........................................................... 9
Queen Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah, 1896 I.L.R. 23 Cal. 604. ................................................ 12
R v. Mc’Naghten, 10 Cl. & F. 200. 11 A. ..................................................................................... 10
Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 S.C.C 403. ................................................... 9
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 637. ............................................................... 10
Shibo Koeri v. The Emperor, (1905-06) 10 C.W.N. 725. ............................................................. 11

Statutes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 302 ....................................................................................................... 9
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 84 ................................................................................................. 10, 11

Books
SHAMSUL HUDA, PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF CRIMES IN BRITISH INDIA 271 (India Publisher, Calcutta,
1902). ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Page | 2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants humbly submits this memorandum filed before the High Court at Lucknow, u/s
377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 which has been posted for final.

THIS MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS FOR THE
APPELLANTS IN THE GIVEN CASE.

Page | 3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal

DW Defence Witness

edn. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

PW Prosecution Witness

r/w Read with

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Page | 4
u/s Under section

V Versus

IPC Indian Penal Code

Page | 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Abhinandan, a 35-year-old man was head of TCS, Lucknow. His wife Komalika was 32
years old and the family resided in Vinamra Khand, Lucknow.
2. He was a very religious man but reported to come under spirit many times and being
influenced and hallucinated, got up like a female and claimed herself to be goddess Durga, sang,
danced and sometimes became violent.
3. On 26th July 2018, his CEO recommended a pay cut, he cursed him to be dead soon.
4. He told his wife that the world was behaving like Asura and CEO is Mahishasura. That
morning, there were only him and his wife in the house. At 8:00, his wife spread a mat on the floor
and lay down quietly. Suddenly Abhinandan started chanting mantras and shouted that he would
eliminate all demons. Abhinandan at first struck her with a Chopper causing a minor injury on her
chest. Then he took up a sharp-cutting hasuli and gave her three violent blows on the neck killing
her on the spot.
5. He then ran out of the house in order to end his own life when he was seen by Sunant who
ran to his house and saw the dead body of his wife lying there in a pool of blood.
6. He informed Abhinandan's father, Sukesh who was the choukidar of Anant Towers who
asked Mahesh to chase his son and ran to his house finding his daughter-in-law dead.
7. The blood-stained chopper and hasuli were lying by the the dead body. Mahesh and Rakesh
had brought Abhinandan under arrest. Soon villagers collected where Abhinandan confessed that
he killed his wife as she was a Rakshas.
8. Sukesh lodged an FIR in Gomti Nagar PS which was recorded by ASI at 11 a.m. The blood-
stained chopper and hasuli were taken charge of by him.
9. The ASI led inquest in the house at 1:30 and took charge of the blood-stained clothes and
prepared a seizure list. He then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.
10. On 27th July, 2018 he made a confession to first class Magistrate at Lucknow, admitting that
he killed his wife and was caught when going to kill himself too.
11. The defence was a plea of innocence. Abhinandan denied that he had murdered his wife. He
further alleged at the trial that his wife had probably been raped by someone and then killed by the
miscreant. Defence also said that Abhinandan was not composed mentally and killed wife in
hallucination.

Page | 6
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?

II. ARGUENDO, EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER, SHOULD A LENIENT PUNISHMENT
BE PRONOUNCED IN THE INSTANT CASE?

Page | 7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1). Whether the Accused is guilty for the offence of Murder and hence liable under § 302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860?

It is humbly submitted that the Accused is not guilty of Murder under part 1 of § 300 of IPC. It
was further established that there was Actus Reus as well as Mens Rea was absent on part of both
the Accused. The extra judicial confession by the Accused cannot be relied upon as a conclusive
evidence for the conviction of the Accused and the defence of Insanity protects the Accused from
any conviction whatsoever.

2). Whether the Accused should be held liable for a strict punishment under § 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Assuming Arguendo, even if the Accused is adjudged to be guilty of Murder, he should not be
held liable for a strict punishment as enshrined under § 302 of IPC. It is our submission today that
the quantum of the punishment in the case at hand should be considerably reduced since the
Accused is a mentally unstable man incapable of making pragmatic decisions like any ordinary
man of general prudence.

Page | 8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

It is humbly submitted that the Accused is not guilty for the offence of murder under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.1 In the instant case, the extra judicial confession by the Accused cannot be
relied upon as a conclusive evidence for the conviction of the Accused [A]. Secondly, the judicial
confession by the Accused cannot be relied upon for conviction [B]. Lastly, the defence of insanity
protects the Accused from conviction in the instant case [C].

A. The extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon in the instant case

In 2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of,2 reiterated the principles pertaining to extra
judicial confessions. The Court clearly observed that an extra-judicial confession is a weak
evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with great care and caution.

Further, in Mohan Singh Balwant Singh v. State,3 the Court stipulated that:

“The police investigating agency in our country has not yet acquired the reputation of being proof
against the temptation of attempting to secure confessions by questionable methods; the
Magistrates recording confessions are therefore expected to devote due attention to all the
safeguards provided for ensuring their truly voluntary character.”

In the instant case, it is clear from the facts that while the Accused (i.e. Mr. Abhinandan) was
making the extra judicial confession, a number of villagers along with the chowkidar and dafadar
were present. The extra judicial confession must therefore be excluded from consideration
altogether as it is highly probable that such a confession was made due to undue mental torture
and pressure by the law enforcement officers such as the Chowkidar and Dafadar.

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 302.
2
Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 S.C.C 403.
3
Mohan Singh Balwant Singh v. State, A.I.R 1965 Punj 291.

Page | 9
B. The judicial confession cannot be relied upon in the instant case

It is submitted that the judicial confession by Abhinandan before the First-Class Magistrate in
Lucknow cannot be relied upon for conviction in the instant case.

The Magistrates recording confessions are expected to devote due attention to all the safeguards
provided for ensuring their truly voluntary character.4 It is reasonable and expected to give an
Accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make the confession.5

Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of the above authorities would clearly suggest that given the
highly incriminating nature of a judicial confession, sufficient opportunity should be given to the
Accused to contemplate the decision of making a confession.

In the instant case, sufficient time was not provided to Abhinandan by the Magistrate to think about
the decision of making a confession. The mind of the Accused could not have been expected to be
completely free of influence and pressure in such a short span of time, that too after staying a night
in the lock-up.

C. The defence of ‘unsoundness of mind’ protects the Accused in the instant case

 The nature and essentials of the defence

Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the defence of unsoundness of mind or
insanity. The section 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 doing the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary in law.”6

The essentials of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are based on the Mc’ Naghten
Principles.7 The principles provide that:

4
Ibid.
5
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 637.
6
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 84.
7
R v. Mc’Naghten, 10 Cl. & F. 200. 11 A.

Page | 10
(i) To establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the
crime, the person was so insane as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if
he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.

(ii) The test of wrongfulness of the act is in the power to distinguish between right and wrong, not
in the abstract or in general, but in regard to the particular act committed.

The burden under Section 84 is not a burden as heavy as a prosecution burden. In determining
insanity for the purposes of Section 84 the circumstances which preceded, attended or followed
the crime are a relevant consideration.8 Further, the use of the word ‘unsoundness of mind’ has the
advantage of doing away with the necessity of defining insanity and of artificially bringing within
its scope different conditions and affliction of the mind which ordinarily do not come within its
meaning.9

This section will apply even in cases of fits of insanity and lucid intervals. It must be proved in
such cases that at the time of commission of the offence, the Accused was surfing from a fit of
insanity which rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of his act. The relevant facts are
motive for the crime, the previous history as to mental condition of the Accused, the state of his
mind at the time of the offence. 10

 Specific factual circumstances replicating the case at hand

In the Shibo Koeri case, the Accused killed his uncle by severing his head and neck with a sword
while shouting ‘Victory to Kali’, and thereafter attempted to strike others including his father. It
was held that the Accused’s case fell within the category of cases wherein a man by reason of
delusion is unable to appreciate the distinction between right and wrong. It was found that the
Accused was suffering from a fit of insanity at the time he attacked the deceased with the sword
and was by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing that he was doing an act which
was wrong or contrary to law, and hence he was acquitted of the charge of murder.11

8
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 84.
9
SHAMSUL HUDA, PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF CRIMES IN BRITISH INDIA 271 (India Publisher, Calcutta, 1902).
10
Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, 1964 A.I.R. 1563.
11
Shibo Koeri v. The Emperor, (1905-06) 10 C.W.N. 725.

Page | 11
The law on the point has been well summarised by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in
Kader Nasayer Shah in the following words:

“A man who may kill a child under an insane delusion that he is saving him from sin and sending
him to heaven is incapable of knowing by reason of insanity that he is doing what is morally wrong,
and therefore not liable under the Criminal Law.”12

A consideration of the above authorities wold clearly give rise to the defence of ‘unsoundness of
mind’ in the instant case. The previous history as to the mental condition of the Accused
substantiates the claim for a defence of ‘unsoundness of mind’. The Accused, Abhinandan, was
reported to have regular delusions and hallucinations wherein he would dress up like a female and
claim himself to be goddess Durga. Under such influence, he would sing, dance and sometimes
even becomes violent.

On the day of the crime i.e. 26th July 2018, the Accused after coming back home mentions to the
victim (the wife) that the world is behaving like Asura and CEO is Mahishasura for reducing his
pay, causing him huge mental trauma.

Even the second test for invoking the defence based on an analysis of the mental condition of the
Accused while committing the offence has been satisfied in the instant case. While committing the
offence, Abhinandan started chanting mantras and shouted that he will eliminate all demons. The
Accused while committing the offence, clearly wasn’t in a mental condition to analyse the moral
side of his actions. As per the “right and wrong” test, he wasn’t able to distinguish between right
and wrong while committing the offence as he was under a delusion that he was Goddess Durga
and was cast a duty to wipe of evil.

It is submitted that the defence of ‘unsoundness of mind’ clearly applies in the instant case and
therefore, the Accused is not guilty of the offence of murder. If a madman kills a someone during
the time of his lunacy, it cannot be said to be a criminal act as it is not an expression of an
understanding of will and is guided by madness alone.

12
Queen Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah, 1896 I.L.R. 23 Cal. 604.

Page | 12
II. Arguendo, even if the Accused is guilty of murder, a lenient punishment should be
pronounced in the instant case

There are certain factors in the impugned case which act as mitigating factors in terms of the
quantum of punishment that should be awarded to the Accused. The Accused is a mentally unstable
man whose instability was triggered by the treatment he received in his professional life.

In a similar case, the Patna High Court imposed a moderate punishment, less severe than the one
imposed by the Trial Court considering the mental instability of the Accused and the personal and
social life of the Accused.13

Therefore, in the interest of justice it is submitted that a lenient to moderate punishment should be
pronounced in the instant case, if the Accused is found guilty of the said crime.

13
Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, A.I.R 1958 Pat. 190.

Page | 13
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, may this Hon’ble court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The Accused is not guilty for the offence of murder under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguendo, even if the Accused is guilty,

2. A less severe punishment is to be pronounced.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good

conscience.

SD/-

Counsel for the Appellants.

Page | 14