The document outlines the written submission on behalf of the defence council in the matter of State of Punjab versus DSP Vanzara. It contains 3 key issues: 1) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction without government sanction as the accused are public officials, 2) Whether the accused can be charged with murder under section 300 IPC, 3) Whether the accused can claim defense under section 76 and 79 IPC. The defence argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, the act falls under exception 3 of section 300, and the accused believed they were lawfully discharging their duties and there was no criminal intent. Case laws have been cited to support each argument.
The document outlines the written submission on behalf of the defence council in the matter of State of Punjab versus DSP Vanzara. It contains 3 key issues: 1) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction without government sanction as the accused are public officials, 2) Whether the accused can be charged with murder under section 300 IPC, 3) Whether the accused can claim defense under section 76 and 79 IPC. The defence argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, the act falls under exception 3 of section 300, and the accused believed they were lawfully discharging their duties and there was no criminal intent. Case laws have been cited to support each argument.
The document outlines the written submission on behalf of the defence council in the matter of State of Punjab versus DSP Vanzara. It contains 3 key issues: 1) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction without government sanction as the accused are public officials, 2) Whether the accused can be charged with murder under section 300 IPC, 3) Whether the accused can claim defense under section 76 and 79 IPC. The defence argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, the act falls under exception 3 of section 300, and the accused believed they were lawfully discharging their duties and there was no criminal intent. Case laws have been cited to support each argument.
The document outlines the written submission on behalf of the defence council in the matter of State of Punjab versus DSP Vanzara. It contains 3 key issues: 1) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction without government sanction as the accused are public officials, 2) Whether the accused can be charged with murder under section 300 IPC, 3) Whether the accused can claim defense under section 76 and 79 IPC. The defence argues that the court lacks jurisdiction, the act falls under exception 3 of section 300, and the accused believed they were lawfully discharging their duties and there was no criminal intent. Case laws have been cited to support each argument.
.DSP Vanzara, a special police officer of Delhi police got information from his informers that a notorious gangster ‘Amit siani’ is travelling from Punjab to National capital Delhi on 20th of February. The informer hinted that he is travelling to Delhi to settle score with a rival gang and some politicians might be hit by him and his group. The informer claimed that Amit Saini will be travelling in a white colored Alto in the disguise of a Sikh wearing blue turban.
.The DSP Vanzara directed his men to be ready and scanned the file about Amit Saini which was based on input from Punjab police and other agencies about the same person. The report claimed that he is a dark colored tall guy, aged around 37 and has a short beard.
.On the morning of 20th February he along with a group of policemen went to the outskirts of city. At around 4am in the morning they saw a white alto driven by a turban clad young man having Punjab number approaching towards them, one of the policeman saw the driver who was a young man wearing a blue turban and signaled the driver to stop the vehicle. The vehicle didn’t stop and DSP Vanzara directed his men to shoot at the vehicle. The policeman fired indiscriminately on the vehicle and in the foggy morning they recovered a bullet ridden body from the alto. The DSP appreciate his men for their bravery and promise them that he will recommend their name for promotion.
.After two days, when nobody claimed the body they were about to handover the body to a local NGO for burial when they got inputs from Punjab police that a young man “Arnab singh” travelling from Bhatinda to Delhi is missing. His family went to Delhi where they were directed towards mortuary where dead bodies of some unidentified victims of accidents were kept. To the surprise of Delhi police the
7 family pointed towards a corps and claimed that he is their son based on his tormented clothes. The concerned official claimed that this is not their son but a dreaded gangster of Punjab, the family insisted and a DNA investigation was carried on which established the fact that the deceased person is Arnab Singh.
.The father of the deceased failed a case of murder against the accused u/s 302, and 120B.
ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether the trail court have jurisdiction to try a public officer.
2. Whether the accused can be charged for the murder under section 300 Indian Penal Code
3. Whether the accused can claim defence under section 76 and 79 of Indian Penal Code
8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENT 1.
Your Honor u/s 197 of the Cr.pc this Hon’ble court cannot take the cognizance of this case without the sanction of the government and the alleged crime committed by the alleged accused are public officials and for which sanction of the government is required as per the sec 197 of crpc is concerned. Hence the case filed by the prosecution against the DSP and his men is frivolous and concocted without seeking prior sanction from the government and the alleged crime committed by the DSP and his men fulfills the test of requirement for sanction and duty under official capacity while in service at the scene of the crime hence this court lacks jurisdiction to try the alleged accused men without sanction from government as required u/s 197 Cr.pc.
Your Honor: I support my argument with the help of the decided case laws:
A.D. Partharathy Vs J.S. Khurdukar 1975 Cri.Lj.
9 In this case it was held that the purpose of the sanction is to secure a well considered opinion of a superior authority before the public servants is actually prosecuted before a court.
State of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew [2004 Cr.LJ.2011 SC]
In this case it was held that the expression ‘no’ court shall take cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction used in section 197{1} of the code makes, protection afforded to public servant mandatory. Further the use of word ‘no’ & ‘shall’ bars the very cognizance of complaint by any court without obtaining previous sanction of the center or state government, as the case may be
It was further held that the use of expression ‘official duty’ implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and that it should have been done in discharge of his duty.
ARGUMENT 2.
Your Honor:
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in this case that the accused can’t be charged u/s 300 of Indian Penal Code because exception 3 of sec 300 of Indian Penal Code clearly says that:
When the public servant exceeds his power: It says culpable homicide not amounts to murder if the offender being a public servant or aiding a public servant for the advancement of the justices, exceeding the power given to him by law and caused death by doing an act which he is in good faith believes to be law full and necessary for the dew discharge of his duty as such public officer and with ill will towards the person whose death is caused.
Your honor:
I elucidate my point that I would quote a few case laws on this matter before this Hon’ble court.
Dukhi singh v state air 1955Cri.LJ
A constable of railway protection police shot a thief suspected to be tempering with sugar bags from the goods wagon on order by the havaldar, he did so in discharge of his duty and that it was just an accident that he hit the fireman instead of thief. He was convicted under section 302of Indian penal code by the lower court. On the appeal it was held that the case would be covered by exception 3 of the section 300 of Indian penal code IPC . It was held that there was no ill will intention. The appellant was a public servant and his object was the advancement of public justice. He caused the death of the fireman by
10 being an act which he in good faith believed to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty and the constable was entitled to the benefit of the exception third of section 300 of Indian penal code [IPC]. Your Honor:
In this case the facts and the records shows that the accused was performing his duty without any ill intention and believes himself bound by law to do it.
So Your Honor:
To committee any crime criminal intend is must towards deceased person, but in this case there is no criminal intention or Mens Rea to kill the deceased person. CASE LAW:
Crisholm Vs Doulton ,22 Q.B.D.739
In this case the court held that no person could be punished in the proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilt mind.
ARGUMENT 3.
Your Honor:
It is most respectfully submitted before the honorable court that in this case the accused can claim defense under section 76 or 79 of Indian penal code IPC because it is evident that there was no intention on part of accused to kill the deceased, it was a mistake of fact under section 76 or 79 of IPC Indian Penal Code. Section 76 of Indian penal code [IPC].
An act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Example: “A” a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
Section 79 of IPC Indian penal code:
Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and no by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
So Your Honor:
11 In this case it is clear that the accuse got information from his informer about the notorious gangster who was travelling from Punjab to national capital Delhi .The information to the deceased person like, blue turban, shot beard, colored tall guy and white colored Alto. Moreover when the accused try to stop the car of the deceased but the deceased did not stop the car. The accused fire indiscriminately on the vehicle, it was foggy morning and the bullet hit the deceased. Your honor:
I support my above argument with the help of some decided case laws as follows:
Pramatha Nath Barat v P.C.Lahiri 1920 I.L.R.47Cal.818
In this case where a Deputy Commissioner of police sent a head constable , placed under suspension, to the lock –up ,without malice and in conformity with a circular order of the Commissioner of police, and it was held that he was justified by law in assuming that the said circular order had received the sanction of the Government of Bengal and that as he, by reason of mistake of fact and not of law ,in good faith ,believed himself to be bound by law to obey the instructions of the Commissioner of police ,and to be justified by law in sending the head constable to the custody ,he was protected by section 76 and section 79 of the Indian Penal Code . In that case the accused can acquitted by the Magistrate on a full investigation of the case.
State of West Bengal v Shrew Singh AIR 1987 SC 1917
The case of the prosecution was that the deceased and his brother were short dead by the police at a point blank range and brutally murdered .According to the defense version, the accused police officer were on patrolling when they were attacked by mob when one of the constable got injured ,orders were given by the deputy commissioner of police to open fire .The accused constable were bound by law to obey the orders of the superior officer .Both the high court and supreme court held that the situation warranted and justified by the orders to open fire and hence the accused got protection under section 76and 79 and cannot be guilty.
So your honor in this case it was clear that it was just mistake of fact and not mistake of law and the accused was done it in doing his duty.
12 PRAYER
Where fore in the light of the facts of the case charges, arguments and authority citied this Hon’ble session court may be pleased to declare that:
The accused should not be charged under section 302 of [ IPC] 1860 & 120B Cr.pc shall be acquitted.
And pass any order in favor of the accused that it may deem in the end of justices, equality and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and Respected fully submitted
