COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

PC : A2-177

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT INDIA

APPEAL U/A 136

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No……. of 2018

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Page 1 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. DELINEATIONS PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

8 PRAYER 18

Page 2 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

& And

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Penal Code Indian Penal Code, 1860

SC Supreme Court

u/s Under section

Page 3 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LIST OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

1. Haripada Dey v. State of West Bengal AIR 1956 SC 757

2. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat 1991 SCC (4) 406

3. Mahesh Balmiki alias Munna v. State of M.P 1999 (6) SC 279

4. Dayanidhi Bisoi v State of Orissa 2003 SC 116

5. Nashik v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC 1485

6. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punayya (1976) 4 SC 382

7. Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1069

8. Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 654

9. Sangeet & Anr. V. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452

10. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal 1992 SCR (1) 37

11. Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 1387

12. Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957

13. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898

Page 4 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

II. LIST OF STATUTES REFERRED

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

III. LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED

1. The Indian Penal Code- KD Gaur

1. www.indiankanoon.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.scconline.com

Page 5 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble SC of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. Leave has been granted by this Hon’ble Court and the matter has been listed for hearing.

The provision under which the Appellant has approached this Hon’ble SC and to which the
respondents humbly submits, is read herein as –

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 –

“(1) notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the supreme court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence, or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces.”

Page 6 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 2nd March 2016 at about 5;30 p.m, Ajnali aged 21 years old boarded the Mumbai-Doon
passenger train from Mumbai railway station to reach her home at Doon for her marriage
ceremony with Bharat.
2. Anjali boarded ladies division of the last compartment, where there were other passengers in the
ladies division of the compartment along with her. When the train reached Ponawala, all other
lady passengers in the ladies division had alighted and therefore Anjali also got down with them
and hurriedly entered ladies coach attached just in front of the last compartment.
3. As Anjali boarded the ladies coach to her surprise there was nobody except her in the ladies
coach. All of a sudden Anjali saw a boy (the accused) Alok around 17 years of age, standing in
passage and constantly gazing at her. As Anjali felt uncomfortable and decided to change the
compartment at the next station, Alok pounced on her and repeatedly hit her head on the walls of
the compartment.
4. Alok dropped and pushed Anjali from the running train as she was crying and screaming, on
being thrown from the moving train Anjali’s face hit on the crossover of the railway line.
5. Alok also jumped down the train and to satisfy his lust sexually assaulted Anjali after lifting her
to another place by the side of the track. Later Alok ransacked her belongings and went away
from the place with her mobile phone.
6. Anjali was found badly injured lying by the side of railway track and Alok was also apprehended
soon thereafter.
7. Anjali was moved to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 5th march 2016.
8. The Trial Court has convicted the accused u/s 302 of the Penal Code, and sentenced him to
death. In contrary The High Court set aside the findings of the Trial Court and acquitted the
accused u/s 302 of Penal Code & awarded him punishment u/s 325 of the Act.
9. Thus this appeal has been listed.

Page 7 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

Whether the Special Leave petition is maintainable under article 136 of the Constitution of
India?

ISSUE II

Whether or not, the reasoning ascribed by the HC in acquitting the accused u/s 302 is
justifiable?

Page 8 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE

The appeal against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court is maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India and the matter involves substantial question of law. In the present case, the
question of law is whether the High Court correctly applied its judicial mind in upholding the
trial court’s interpretation of Section 302- of the IPC. Answering to this question is crucial in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience, restoring the rights of the parties involved as well
as for the general public.

Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court may grant special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India, in such a cases as there has been gross miscarriage of justice or departure from legal
procedure, such as which vitiates the whole trial or if the finding of facts were such as shocking
to the judicial conscience of the Court.

II. WHETHER OR NOT, THE REASONING ASCRIBED BY THE HC IN ACQUITTING

In the present matter the accused clearly banged the head of the victim back & front 4-5 times,
clearly indicating that even if the victim did not have the knowledge about the consequences of
the death of the victim, surely the accused did possess wrongful intentions towards the victim
which eventually resulted in her death. That having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on
the deceased and its cumulative affect it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was
no intention to kill. That pertaining to the present matter where it is prima facie evident that
several injuries were inflicted on the head of the victim clearly making the intentions of the
accused amply clear.

Page 9 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:- WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

1. That in its discretion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court may grant a Special Leave Petition to
appeal for any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

2. That in criminal cases the court will only grant a special leave to appeal where it is shown
that special and exceptional circumstances exist, or it is established that grave injustice has
been done and that the case in question is sufficiently important to warrant a review of the
decision by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can grant special leave against
judgments of any court or tribunal in the territory, except the military courts, and in any type
of cases, civil, criminal or revenue.

3. That in the case of Haripada Dey v. State of West Bengal1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that it will grant special leave only if there has been gross miscarriage of justice or
departure from legal procedure, such as which vitiates the whole trial or if the finding of
facts were such as shocking to the judicial conscience of the Court.

4. That article 136 is worded in wide terms and powers conferred by it are not hedged in by any
technical hurdles. That the article 136 merely confers discretionary power on the Court to
scrutinize and to go into the evidence in special circumstances in order to see that substantial
and grave injustice has not been done.

1
1956 AIR 757

Page 10 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

5. That in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat2, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that under article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has
wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and orders passed by any court or tribunal
in the country. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special residuary power to
entertain appeal against any order of any court. The plenary jurisdiction of the Court to
grant leave and hear appeal against any order of a court or tribunal, confer power of
judicial superintendence over all the court and tribunals including subordinate courts of
magistrate and District Judge.

6. That in the present matter, as evident from the face of it that the judgment pronounced by the
Hon’ble bench of the High Court, the facts of the matter have been wrongly interpreted. That
the decision of the Trial Court was wrongfully set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and thus
to bring justice to the victim and the society at large this matter needs Apex’s Court
consideration.

2
1991 SCC (4) 406

Page 11 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

ISSUE 2:- WHETHER OR NOT, THE REASONING ASCRIBED BY THE HC IN

7. That prima facie from the facts of the matter, it can be clearly alleged that the accused clearly
had the knowledge as well as he had the intention to cause death of the victim. That it is evident
from the facts that the accused pounced on the victim and further went on to bang her head on
the walls of the train several times. That clearly even as per the postmortem reports that have
been produced, state that these injuries were capable for the victim to be in the state of dizziness
and render the person incapable of responding. That in the case of Mahesh Balmiki alias
Munna v. State of M.P.3 (1999), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that the
intention of the person cannot be determined by the number of blows that the accused has given
to the victim. That the intention of person differs from facts and circumstances of each case. That
in the present matter the accused clearly banged the head of the victim back & front 4-5 times,
clearly indicating that even if the victim did not have the knowledge about the consequences of
the death of the victim, surely the accused did possess wrongful intentions towards the victim
which eventually resulted in her death.

8. That the victim was feeling uncomfortable in the compartment due to a constant gaze from the
accused and wanted to shift from that compartment on the next station. That the act of pouncing
over the victim by the accused was done without any kind of provocation from the end of the
victim. That in the case of Dayanidhi Bisoi v State of Orissa4, where it was clearly anticipated
that where there was no provocation on the end of the victim and the act of the accused was
committed in a deliberate and diabolic manner and caused murder, the Hon’ble Court
maintained the decision of the lower courts for awarding death sentence to the accused. That the
Hon’ble bench just cannot turn a close eye towards a situation where the accused dealt a severe
knife blow on the stomach of the deceased without provocation Nashik v. State of
Maharashtra5 by merely stating that the act lacked intention.

3
1999 (6) SC 279
4
2003 SC 116
5
AIR 1993 SC 1485

Page 12 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

9. That the fact remains undisputed that the accused always possessed malafide intentions towards
the victim and the whole act was done merely to satisfy his lust from the very beginning. That
the victim was in no state to regain consciousness once her head was stabbed several times back
and front on the walls of the compartment of the train. That the accused being in a state of shock,
was being pushed from a moving train by the accused. That even as per the postmortem reports,
even though the speed of the train was minuscule, the head injuries were enough to make this
fact trivial. That at the time when she was being pushed from the compartment, her face had hit
the crossover of the railway line, putting her completely in a dormant state from where regaining
consciousness was medically not possible.

10. That the whole act was not hidden from the world and cries of the victim were loud and clear to
be heard by the people around in other compartment. That the PW-1 Robin and PW-2 Akbar
along with PW-4 Ganpat had later went on to register a complaint regarding the whole incident.
That it would be pertinent to mention here that the whole act of the accused further turned into a
nasty state, when the body of the victim was dragged by the accused to side of the track and he
went on to sexually assaulting her.

11. That the matter is completely undisputed that the victim was sexually assaulted by the accused
and the same has been conferred in the postmortem reports as well. That the whole incident
attained gravity when accused just to satisfy his lust placed the body of the victim in supine
position, which resulted in aspiration of blood into the air passage. That the victim had already
lost her conscious suffering from injuries and was in no state to act against the wrongful deeds
done on her. Further the aspiration of blood in air passages resulted in causing head trauma.

12. That the accused always wanted to satisfy his lust and in the due course of his act, the injuries
that were given to the victim clearly indicate that the accused not only had the knowledge but
also possessed the intention to cause death. That the fact cannot be disputed that once the
accused had stabbed her head 4-5 times on the walls of the compartment of the train, it was
evident to the accused that the victim was already in a terrible state to survive. That even after
that the accused went on to push the body of the victim from the moving train resulting in the

Page 13 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

head of the victim being hit by the crossover of the railway line. That if the accused’s
contentions are to be considered regarding the fact that he did not possess any intention to
murder the victim, then he would not have gone on to push the body of the victim out of the train
even after causing several severe head injuries to the victim.

13. That the accused cannot maintain the view that he did not possess the knowledge of the whole
incident. That the fact that he had hit the head of the victim several times and later pushed her
from the moving train clearly indicates that he always possessed wrongful intentions towards the
victim. That if at all the accused had kind and bonafide intentions towards the victim; he would
have taken some step towards helping her and carrying the severely injured body to the hospital.
That there was never any good intent that was persisting with the accused and the complete
series of events prove the fact that the accused always had wrong and malafide intentions
towards the victim. That the accused was a man with sound mind and he always had the
knowledge of the consequences of his act of violence. That if the accused did not have the
intention to cause death of the victim, he would not have carried his act of violence to the extent
to push the victim out of the compartment of a moving train and further dragging the body of the
victim and putting her in a supine position and sexually assaulted her.

14. That it is evident from the postmortem report that have been produced that the victim was
rendered insensitive and was in a complete state of shock which is why when the victim was
pushed over from the moving train, there was no reflex action from the victim. That the report
clearly states that the victim was pushed over and that the victim clearly fell on her face on the
track from the moving train. That the victim did not have any kind of injury on her elbow, wrist
and inner boarders of forearm, meaning thereby that the victim had to suffer a direct impact on
her face. That the consequences of the act was due to the severe head injuries given by the
accused resulting in making the victim completely unconscious because of which the victim
could not give any kind of reflex action at the time when she was being pushed from the moving
train.

Page 14 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

15. That the Hon’ble High Court has erred in analyzing the facts of the case and has wrongly upheld
the punishment that was earlier awarded by the trial court to the accused. That as per section 300
of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states that except in the cases hearing after excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intension of
causing death, or
(Thirdly)- if it is done with the intension 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. That the act of the accused of banging the head of the victim several times on the
walls of the compartment evidently shows that the injuries caused were sufficient enough
to cause death. That in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punayya6
where it was held that bodily injuries caused in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, in clause thirdly of section 300, meaning there by that the death will be most
probable result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature.

16. That further it is humbly submitted that where the Hon’ble High Court contended that the
accused never had the intention to cause death has been wrongly analyzed. That in the case of
Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh7 where it was held that having regard to the number of
injuries inflicted on the deceased it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was no
intention to kill. That pertaining to the present matter where it is prima facie evident that several
injuries were inflicted on the head of the victim clearly making the intentions of the accused
amply clear.

17. That the accused had given severe bodily injuries to the victim by hitting her head 4-5 times back
and front on the walls of the compartment of the train. That considering the fact that head being
one of the most vital part of the body, when several severe injuries were given by the accused to
the victim in itself had put the victim in a state of dizziness rendering her incapable to respond.
That the case of Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu8 the court held that one of the injuries inflicted
by the appellant was on a vital part of the body of the deceased. That even though the accused
did not posses any intention to cause death of the victim, but still the law cannot turn a blind eye

6
(1976) 4 SC 382
7
AIR 1991 SC 1069
8
AIR 1956 SC 654

Page 15 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

towards the fact that the accused did not posses knowledge of the consequences from his act.
That at all times accused must have known that such bodily injuries which he was inflicting were
likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

18. That further a balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be drawn up. That the
aggravating circumstances relate to the crime whereas the mitigating circumstances relate to the
criminal. That even though consideration for both are distinct and unrelated but still a balance
needs to be struck down in accordance with the facts & circumstances. That in the case of
Sangeet & Anr. V. State of Haryana9, the Constitution Bench held that there cannot be
standardization and categorization of crimes. That in the due process of sentencing punishment
it is equally important to take into account both the crime as well as the criminal. That pertaining
to the present matter, the victim had died due to blunt injuries sustained to head after repetitive
head blows and also further complications including aspiration of blood into air passage. That
further the accused had gone on to the extent to sexually exploit the victim and given her lethal
multiple organ dysfunctions. That the postmortem reports make the fact amply clear that the
accused always possessed malafide intentions towards the victim, which is why once he had
sexually abused the victim and given her injuries around the urethral meatus, he had walked
away with the belongings of the victim (such as her mobile phone). That even as per the DNA
reports, which clearly indicate that the blood stains recovered from the body and the clothes of
the accused are of the victim.

19. That the report states that the victim was pushed over from the moving train when the victim
was in a state of dizziness and her face had hit the crossover of the railway line. That this facts
becomes completely undisputed as the postmortem reports make it evident that there was no
reflex action from the victim as she had no injury on her elbow, wrist or any part of the forearm.
That meaning thereby that the victim was in complete state of dizziness and was intentionally
pushed over by the accused. That in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal10 where
the accused, brutally raped and murdered a 14 year old girl, who was in a state of
unconsciousness as her nose was broken and wind pipe was crushed before being raped.

9
(2013) 2 SCC 452
10
1992 SCR (1) 37

Page 16 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

20. That further the court should consider that the accused found a young girl alone in a train
compartment pounced on her, repeatedly hit her head, and even after the victims cry for help,
accused pushed and dropped the victim from running train on the track, committed rape and ran
away from the place with her mobile phone. That In Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa11 accused
appellant committed rape on a girl who later died was sentenced to death even though he had no
intention to kill the girl, but his actions while committing rape which led to the death of the
deceased due to asphyxia were considered to be rarest of rare case by the court. That in the
present case the report clearly states that the decedent had died due to blunt injuries sustained to
head which further lead to aspiration of blood in air passage as the deceased had been kept in a
supine position, for sexual intercourse.

21. That in the vulnerability of the victim, the enormity of the crime the execution thereof should
persuade the learned council to hold that this is a rarest of rare case where the sentence of death
is eminently desirable not only to deter others from committing such atrocious crimes but also to
give emphatic expression to society’s abhorrence of such crimes. That further considering the
principle of sentencing in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab12, the Apex Court referring to the
rarest of the rare theory observed that, when the community’s collective conscience is so
shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict the death penalty
irrespective of their personal opinion as regard the desirability or otherwise of retaining the death
penalty, the court must award death sentence in such a case.

22. Thus it is the case of deliberate and gruesome murder that comes in the rarest of rare category
that the death sentence can be imposed and these special reasons may be examined by the
superior courts in appeal13.

11
AIR 1995 SC 1387
12
AIR 1983 SC 957
13
AIR 1980 SC 898

Page 17 of 18
COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2018, LAW CENTRE - II

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced,
it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to direct: -
1. That to uphold the findings of the Trial Court by reversing the order of the Hon’ble High
Court.
2. That the accused shall be held guilty u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the interest of
justice.

AND
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And for this, the Appellant as in duty bound shall humbly pray.

SD/-

Page 18 of 18