MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

[SLP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

AMPHISSA]
[P NO. /2022]

STATE OF PALLAKA ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

MICHAEL .................................................................................. RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF AMPHISSA

II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

 LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................ 2
 CASES REFERRED ......................................................................................................... 2
 BOOKS REFERRED ........................................................................................................ 3
 LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES ........................................................................ 3
 LEGAL DATABASES ..................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 6
ISSUES RAISED ......................................................................................................................... 9
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION MAINTAINABLE? .................................. 9
SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO EXONERATE THE
ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER? .................................................................... 9
WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE PART OF
DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF ON PART OF PROSECUTION? ..... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 11
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... 20

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1951.

2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

 CASES REFERRED

1. Abdul Khader v. Tarabai (2011) 6 SCC 529.

2. Ashiruddin v. The King, 1949 CriLJ 255.
3. Barelal vs. State, AIR 1960 MP 102.
4. Bed Raj v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 778
5. Bhilari vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1.
6. Bindra vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 Oudh 485.
7. Dahyabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1963.
8. Dalip Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364;
9. Harendra Sarkar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2467.
10.In re Pappath Ammal, AIR 1959 Mad 239.
11.Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755.
12.Krishna vs. State of UP, AIR 2007 SC 2452.
13. Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000
SC 492.
14. Narsingh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 457.
15. Pramod Buildings & Developers(p) Ltd. v. Shanta Chopra AIR 2011 SC
1424.
16. Pritam Singh v. State, (AIR 1950 SC 169:1950 SCR 453).
17.R. v. Bryne, (1960) 2 QB 396.

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

18.R. v. M’Naughten’s, (1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & 200.

19.Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 AIR 778, 1971 SCR (3) 251.
20.S.B. minerals v. MSLP Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 1137.
21.State of Rajasthan v. Islam AIR 2011 SC 2317.
22.State vs. Chotte Lal, AIR 1959 MP 203.
23.State vs. Kartik Chandra, AIR 1951 Assam 79.
24. Vijayee Singh vs State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 1459.
25. Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158.

 BOOKS REFERRED

1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51st ed.,

2014).
2. Dr. S.C. Kashyap, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1st ed., 2008).
3. M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed., 2015).
4. Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (34th ed., 2014)

 LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES

1. Bryan A. Garner, BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY, (2nd ed., 2004).

2. Justice R.P. Sethi, SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES,
(2nd ed., 2004).
3. Webster‟s UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY, (1st ed., 1993).

 LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.indiancaselaws.org
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.judic.nic.in
4. www.lexisnexis.com
5. www.scconline.co.in

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honourable

Ors. Others

S.C.R. Supreme Court Report

SC Supreme Court

UP Uttar Pradesh

V. Versus

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents humbly submit before the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of Amphissa that the Respondents have appeared in the Hon‟ble
Court in response to the notice sent by the Petitioners who have invoked the
matter under Article 1361 of the Constitution of Amphissa.

1
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(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 cause 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.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

a) That the Democratic Republic of Amphissa is a quasi-federal country comprising of 35 states

with strong central Government. The Laws of Amphissa are in Pari-materia with the Laws of
India. Pallaka is among one of the developed states of Amphissa.
b) That Michael and Jenny are citizen of Amphissa, resident of Flemingo, a small town of
Pallaka.
c) That Michael, aged 29, S/O- Late John, R/O- 54/3-New Ext. Apartment, Flemingo, and
Jenny, Aged 24 yrs, D/O- Defrado, R/O- Greater Ango Colony, Flemingo, were married on
25th Feb, 2016 according to their religious rituals.
d) That their marital life was going smoothly, except on some occasions when they used to
have few verbal quarrels but reconciled soon after.
e) That the two had a daughter named Jennifer on 4 th September 2018, after which, Jenny
observed certain changes in the behaviour of Michael who, started behaving in a rude way
and became violent on every petty issue without any reason.
f) That Jenny took Michael to the doctor Alfered (DW1), a psychiatrist who advised Michael to
have control over anger and take certain medicines. The doctor diagnosed him to be
suffering from first stage of Bipolar Mood Disorder (Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-
depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity
levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks. There are four basic types
of bipolar disorder; all of them involve clear changes in mood, energy, and activity levels).
g) That the violent behaviour of Michael continued to exist. On slight issues Michael becomes
violent and he also started to fight with Jenny and he also use to beat him without any
reason.
h) That on 5th December 2018 at 11am, loud noise of fighting, crying and shouting came from
the house of Michael. On hearing the cry, Daniel (PW3), neighbour of Michael went to their
house and found Jenny lying unconscious on the floor pooled in blood with various injuries
on her body. Daniel also saw Michael hiding a 7 inch Iron Axe in the garden.
i) That Daniel called the police and Jenny was taken to government hospital whereby she was
treated by Dr. Andrew (PW2). Michael was arrested by police on the same day and was kept
in police custody.
j) That on 6th December, 2018 Jenny regained her consciousness and her statement was
recorded by Jaison (PW1) SHO of Flemingo Police Station. She stated that:

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
k) On 5th December at 10 am Michael came home and started fighting with her in a violent way
and when she resisted Michael attacked him with axe kept in the garden.
l) That on 8th December Jenny died because of the injury in her lower abdomen which proved
fatal. Jennifer the daughter of Michael was sent to Government Child Care Centre.
m) That on the basis of the statement of Daniel and the dying declaration of Jenny, FIR was
lodged against Michael vide. 733/2018 in Flemingo police station. Michael was prosecuted
under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of Jenny. During interrogation Michael stated that
he was unconscious at the time when Jenny was attacked. He told to police that when he
regained his consciousness he found Jenny lying on the floor and axe in his hand. He told to
the police that he did not know from where the axe came and he also stated that he did not
know how Jenny died. Final Report was submitted on 3 rd Feb.2019 in which Michael was
charged for murder of Jenny under Section 302 of IPC. The case (State of Pallaka vs.
Michael) was tried by the Session Court vide Session Trial No-57/2019.
n) That on 3rd September 2020 Michael was found guilty of intentional murder of Jenny and
convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
o) That the accused feeling aggrieved by the said judgment preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Pallaka on dated 9th October 2020 vide Criminal Appeal No. 875/2020. The High
Court relying on the version of the doctor treating the accused for Bipolar Mood Disorder
found that the accused at the time of committing crime was suffering from both legal and
medical insanity and accordingly the Court acquitted the accused from the charge of murder
on dated 5th September 2021.
p) That the State of Pallaka has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of Amphissa
against the order of acquittal by the High Court of Pallaka.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2

SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO

EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY ON THE

PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF PROOF ON PART
OF PROSECUTION?

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

MAINTAINABLE?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents would like to humbly submit before
the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa that the present set of facts do not show sufficient
causes to allow appeal by special leave. This extraordinary power is to be used
cautiously in exceptional circumstance where the occurred injustice jolted the
conscience of the court. However, this case doesn‟t rise to level.

2. WHETHER THE SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL INSANITY

EXISTS SO AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED FROM
LIABILITY OF MURDER?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents would like to humbly submit before
the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa that sufficient ground of legal insanity exists to
exonerate the accused from the liability of murder.

3. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY

ON THE PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF
PROOF ON PART OF PROSECUTION?
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents would like to humbly submit before
the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa.

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

MAINTAINBLE?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents humbly submits before the Hon‟ble
SC of Amphissa that the present suit filed under Article 136 of the Constitution
of Amphissa. The present set of fact does not show sufficient causes to allow appeal
by special leave. This extraordinary power is to be used cautiously in exceptional
circumstance where the occurred injustice jolted the conscience of the court.
However, this case doesn‟t rise to level.

Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and no
exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. The
practice of non-interference in the decisions of lower courts is followed by the
Supreme Court when it is of the view that all relevant factors have been taken
into consideration as in the instantaneous matter. Even once admitted petition
might be rejected if the grounds to approach the Supreme Court are infirm.
Hence, Hon‟ble Supreme Court must reject the present petition.

a. The Special Leave Petition Filed With The Supreme Court Of

Amphissa Is Not Maintainable
Special leave petition Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court flows from Article 136
empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal from
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 The exercise of
writ jurisdiction by the Supreme Court is discretionary in nature. 3 It is submitted
that the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable on primarily these grounds:
That there is no miscarriage of justice and the order of high court is not
misconceived or perverse;
There exist no exceptional circumstances that warrant special leave to appeal in
this court.

2
INDIA CONST. Art. 136; Subedar v. State of U.P. AIR 1971 SC 125.
3
D.D BASU, A COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8th Edn., 2010).

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

(i) That there is no miscarriage of justice and the order of the high court
is not misconceived or perverse
When Supreme Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction under Art 1364 of
the Constitution it is in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice,
if finding of acquittal by high court is found to be misconceived and perverse,
this court can quash such order of acquittal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 5
The facts of the present case don‟t lead to such conclusion as the trial court
convicted the accused but on appeal, after re-assessing all the evidence, the HC
acquitted the accused of all the charges of murder on the ground of legal
insanity.6 The SC had declared repeatedly that special leave will not be granted
unless special and exceptional circumstances exist and / or grave injustice has
been committed. The case of Pritam Singh v. State,7 has had a huge importance in
understanding the SLP.

This was an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court
of Judicature for the Province of East Punjab at Simla dated the 23rd November,
1949, in Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 1949 upholding the conviction of the
appellant on a charge of murder and confirming a sentence of death passed on
him by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. On appeal, the Punjab High Court
dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence. The counsel for the special leave
pleaded that once an appeal had been admitted by special leave, the entire case
was at large and the appellant had the freedom to contest all the findings of the
High Court or the trial Court. The SC found this totally unwarranted and
explained how the discretionary powers will be exercised in granting special
leave to appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

In Dalip Singh v State of Punjab8 the SC clarified the context in which the court
could interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower court. Thus, when
discretion has been exercised along with the accepted judicial lines, an appellate

4
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court -
(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 cause 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
5
State of Rajasthan v. Islam AIR 2011 SC 2317; S.B. minerals v. MSLP Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 1137
6
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
7
Pritam Singh v. State, (AIR 1950 SC 169:1950 SCR 453).
8
AIR 1953 SC 364; Narsingh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 457

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused except for very strong
reasons, which must be disclosed on the fact of the judgment. In Bed Raj v State
of Uttar Pradesh,9 this court stated that, in the matter of enhancement, there
should not be interference when the sentence imposes substantial sentence.
Interference will be warranted only when the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice of the Supreme
Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the
finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court. 10
A pure finding of facts based on appreciation of evidence does not call for
interference in exercise of power under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 11 It is very
important to notice this observation “there is no tangible justification to allow the
appellants to raise new plea for the first time, the determination of which would
require detailed investigation into facts”.12 The Court would re-appreciate
evidence only to find out whether there has been any illegality, material
irregularity or miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, in the present suit filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
there has been no such miscarriage of justice so as to allow special leave petition.

9
AIR 1955 SC 778
10
Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
11
Pramod Buildings & Developers(p) Ltd. v. Shanta Chopra AIR 2011 SC 1424
12
Abdul Khader v. Tarabai (2011) 6 SCC 529

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2. WHETHER THE SUFFICIENT GROUND OF LEGAL

INSANITY EXISTS SO AS TO EXONERATE THE ACCUSED
FROM LIABILITY OF MURDER?
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents humbly submit before the Hon‟ble SC
of Amphissa that no sufficient ground of legal insanity exists so as to exonerate
the accused from the liability of murder.

The Counsel humbly submits before the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa that Section 84
states-
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it,
by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”13
A number of tests have been given from time to time for this purpose and the
kind and degree of insanity available as a defence against a crime. But the most
notable among all is the R. v. M’Naughten’s case.14 In this case the law relating
to insanity is to be found in the form of replies given by the 15 judges of the
House of Lords to the five questions put to them with a view to clarifying the law
on this subject. The two questions that arose were:
1. What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury where a person,
alleged to be afflicted with insane delusions respecting one or more
particular subject or persons, is charged with the commission of a crime
and insanity is set up as a defence?
2. In what terms ought the questions to be left to the jury as to the prisoner‟s
state of mind at the time when the act was committed?
The answers to these questions were:
Every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to
be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction;
and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved
that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under
such a defect of reason, from the disease of the mind, as not to know the nature
and the quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know
he was doing what was wrong.
In the case of R. v. McNaughten,15 the accused, Daniel McNaughten was
charged for the murder of Edward Drummond (Secretary to the Prime Minister,
Sir Robert Peel), by shooting him in his back, as he was walking. The accused
13
Sec. 84, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
14
R. v. M‟Naughten‟s, (1843) 8 E.R. 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & 200.
15
Ibid.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

was suffering from an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had injured him. He
mistook Drummond for Sir Robert and so shot and killed him. The accused
pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity, his obsession with certain morbid
(horrible) delusions. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of
insanity.
Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code embodies two different mental conditions to
claim exemption from criminal liability, namely:
(i) The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, owing to
the unsoundness of the mind, or
(ii) The accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from
understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or was contrary
to law.
Since it is a well-established principle of criminal law that there are basically 2
elements which are necessary to be established in order to prove him guilty for an
offence which are namely Mens Rea (guilty mind) and Actus Reus (wrong or
unlawful Action). The legal maxim Actus Non-Facet Reum Nisi Mens sit Rea
which means that „The act and the intent must both conquer together in order to
constitute a crime.‟
And in this case the defendant, Michael was a insane person as doctor Alfered
(DW1), who was a psychiatrist who diagnosed him to be suffering from first
stage of Bipolar Mood Disorder (Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-
depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy,
activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks and in spite of the
medical treatment the violent behaviour of Michael continued to exist so
although Michael had taken medical treatment but his mental condition didn't
improve which was then beyond his control.
Michael also told to police that when he regained his consciousness he found
Jenny lying on the floor and axe in his hand. He told to the police that he did not
know from where the axe came and he also stated that he did not know how
Jenny died which clearly states that Michael was not in a good mental condition
while the offence was committed also the fact that Michael didn't fled the house
after the offence shows that he had no clear understanding of his act and had no
mens rea as he was insane at the time of the act. 16
There needs to be a difference between legal insanity and medical insanity. A
Court is only concerned with legal insanity, and not medical insanity. What is
given by Section 84, IPC, 1860 is the defence of legal insanity as distinct from

16
Moot Proposition.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

medical insanity. An individual becomes lawfully insane when he or she is

unable to recognize the meaning of the act or that what he did was wrong, or
against the law. Individual incapacity on the definition of insanity must be of the
sort attracting the application of section 84, IPC, 1860. So Michael was both
legally and mentally insane.
Section 300 states -
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the
act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death,
or-17
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-18
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,19 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. 20
As per this section the essentials of murder under section 300 are Intention of
causing death and knowledge that death would be caused and both this essentials
were not fulfilled in the given case because a mentally insane person cannot
judge and have the intention and knowledge of murder. So Michael cannot be
charged under section section 302 for the murder of Jenny.
In R. v. Bryne,21 the accused was charged for strangling a girl and mutilating her
dead body. It was found that the accused was a sexual psychopath and that he
could not control himself at the material time. The trial judge directed the jury to
the effect that if he killed the girl under an abnormal sexual impulse or urge
which was so strong that he found it difficult or impossible to resist, but
otherwise he was normal, the plea of diminished responsibility would fail. He
was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal substituted a verdict of
manslaughter.

17
Sec 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
R. v. Bryne, (1960) 2 QB 396.

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Similarly, in the given case, the accused, Mr. Michael was incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, owing to the unsoundness of the mind. Also, he by reason of
unsoundness of mind was unable to understand that what he was doing was either
wrong or was contrary to law.
In the case of Ashiruddin v. The King,22 the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court
allowed the defence of insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code on the
ground that the accused had sacrificed his son of five years while acting under the
delusion of a dream, believing it to be right. The accused had dreamt that he was
commanded by someone in paradise to sacrifice his son of five years. The next
morning the accused took his son to a mosque and killed him by thrusting a knife
at his throat. He then went straight to his uncle but, finding a chaukidar nearby,
took his uncle to a tank some distance away and slowly related the story. On
these facts, it was held by a bench of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court that this
was a case of insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code was made out.
It was held in this case that to enable an accused to obtain the benefit of section
84 of The Indian Penal Code he should establish any one of the following three
elements:-
i. That the nature of the act was not known to the accused, or
ii. That the act was not known by him to be contrary to law, or
iii. That the act was not known by him to be wrong.
On the above facts, the Bench held that the third element was established by the
accused, namely, that the accused did not know that the act was contrary to law. 23
In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,24 the accused was in the habit of
setting fire to his own clothes and house. It was held that this could hardly be
called rational and was more likely verging on insanity. The Supreme Court
accepted the plea of insanity raised by the accused and absolved him of criminal
liability.
In the light of all these cited cases, Mr. Michael should be granted the defence of
insanity under section 84 of The Indian Penal Code.

22
Ashiruddin v. The King, 1949 CriLJ 255.
23
Ibid.
24
Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 AIR 778, 1971 SCR (3) 251.

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3. WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF LEGAL INSANITY

ON THE PART OF DEFENCE IS AT PAR WITH BURDEN OF
PROOF ON PART OF PROSECUTION?
The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents would like to humbly submit before
the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa that the burden of proof lies at the Prosecution to
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is not legally insane to be given
the defence of legal insanity in the instant matter.

In Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab,25 the Supreme Court held that in any
criminal case, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution, and therefore, if it fails to
adduce satisfactory evidence to discharge that burden it cannot fall back upon
evidence adduced by the accused person in support of their defence to rest its
case solely thereupon.
The accused need not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for
him to show preponderance of probabilities in his favour. 26
The Counsel puts forth the case of Vijayee Singh vs. State of UP, whereby it was
held by the Hon‟ble SC that if the accused succeeds in creating reasonable doubt
or shows preponderance of probability in favour of plea, the obligation on his
part gets discharged and he would be entitled to be acquitted.27
The Counsel humbly submits before the Hon‟ble SC of Amphissa that the
concept of reverse burden of proof cannot be applied in every case as it not only
violates Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also the
Fundamental Rights of an accused envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such a legal principle
cannot be thrown aside under any situation.28
The Counsel on behalf of the accused humbly submits before the Hon‟ble SC of
Amphissa that if a person by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary
to law he cannot be guilty of any criminal intent. Such a person lacks the
requisite mens rea and is entitled to an acquittal.29
25
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755.
26
Krishna vs. State of UP, AIR 2007 SC 2452.
27
Vijayee Singh vs State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 1459.
28
Harendra Sarkar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2467; Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat,
(2004) 4 SCC 158.
29
State vs. Kartik Chandra, AIR 1951 Assam 79; State vs. Chotte Lal, AIR 1959 MP 203; Barelal vs. State, AIR
1960 MP 102; In re Pappath Ammal, AIR 1959 Mad 239; Bhilari vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1; Dahyabhai vs.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1963.

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

It must be however be borne in mind the burden of proof in a criminal trial

remains at all times upon the prosecution, and it is only shifted upon the accused
in so far as an accused person may set up the existence of circumstances bringing
his case within any of the general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code or within
any general exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code. 30

In the instant case, Dr Alfered (DW1), the doctor of the accused clearly stated
before the Hon‟ble Court that Michael was suffering from Bipolar Mood
Disorder, which was sufficient from to enable a person to do any violent act
under its influence.31 Further, Mathew, brother of the accused, who deposed
before the Court as DW3, also stated that Michael used to turn aggressive at
many occasions and violent for the slightest of reasons.

30
Bindra vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 Oudh 485.
31
Moot proposition.

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS HUMBLY
PRAYS THAT THE HON‟BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO DECLARE
THAT:

a. The special leave petition is not maintainable

b. Their exists sufficient ground of legal insanity to exonerate the accused

from the liability of murder

c. The burden of proof on the part of the prosecution is more than the
accused

AND/OR

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR
THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

19