IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CASE CONCERNING SEC. 326A, 354-A & 354-D, 366 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO……… OF 2015

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

THE STATE
(Appellant)

V/s

SUMIT VERMA
(Respondent)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
 List of Statutes 3
 Law Lexicons Referred 3
 List of Books Referred 3
 List of Cases 4
 List of Internet Sources 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
ISSUES PRESENTED 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

BODY OF PLEADINGS 13-28

ISSUE-1: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 326-A r/w

SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

ISSUE-2: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GULITY UNDER SECTION 354-A &

354-D OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

ISSUE-3: WHETHER THE COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED FOR VICTIM

AND WHETHER LIFEIMPRISONMENT CAN BE SENTENCED?

ISSUE-4: WHETHER ADDITIONALCHARGE UNDER SECTION 366 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE CAN BE FRAMED AGAINST RESPONDENT?

PRAYER 29

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R -- ALL INDIA REPORTERS

& -- AND

ANR. -- ANOTHERS

CJ -- CHIEF JUSTICE

DB -- DIVISION BENCH

FB -- FULL BENCH

HC -- HIGH COURT

I.e. -- THAT IS

J -- JUSTICE

ORS. -- OTHERS

PARA -- PARAGRAPH

SCC -- SUPREME COURT CASES

SCW -- SUPREME COURT WEEKLY

SUPRA -- ABOVE

V. -- VERSUS

VOL. -- VOLUME

IPC -- INDIAN PENAL CODE

CrPC -- CRIMINAL PROCDURE CODE

U/S -- UNDER SECTION

R/W -- READ WITH

SEC -- SECTION

ART -- ARTICLE

3
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF STATUTES

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

LAW LEXICONS REFERRED

P. RamanathaIyer, Concise Law Dicitionary, 5thEdn (2008)

Wharton`s, Law Lexicon, 14thEdn (1991)
Black, H.C., Black`s Law Dictionary, 6thEdn (1990)
Buttterworth`s, Medical Dictionary, 2ndEdn.
Compact, Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus & World Power Guide
Corpus JurisSecundum, Volume LXVII3
Cambridge, Advance Learner`s Dictionary, 1stEdn. 2003
Dorling Kindersley, Illustrated Oxford Dictionary

TEXT / ARTICLES / BOOKS REFERRED

Dr. Hari Singh Gaur, Indian Penal Code, 2014

Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 34thEdn., 2014Butterworths Lexis Nexis
B.M. Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, 2014, Eastern Book co.
BatukLal, Indian Penal Code, 2014, Central Law Agency
BatukLal, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 2ndEdn 2010 Central Law Agency
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal,The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 17thEdn. 2010Wadhwa& Co,
Nagpur

4
 TABLE OF CASES

1. AherPithaVajshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC 386

2. ArjunPrabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 Cr LJ 2409 (Bom)
3. Balu v. State (through inspector of police decided on 26/10/2006)
4. Bharati v. State of U.P (AIR 1974 SC 839)
5. Bashir v. State, AIR 1953 All 668
6. B.N. Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1990 SC 1628
7. B.N. Srikantiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672
8. Chandra Pal Singh v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 826 All
9. Chandreshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr LJ 3085 (Pat)
10. Damodar v. State of U.P., 2005 Cr LJ 330 SC
11. Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, 2004 Cr LJ 3328 SC
12. GulabShabiblal Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (1998 Bom. CR(Cri.)
13. Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39: AIR 2008 SC 3113
14. Hamlet v. State of Kerela,(2003) 10 SCC 108
15. Hari Om v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 666: 1993 Cr LJ 1383: 1993 Supp (2) SCC 1
16. Jagdeo Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 648
17. Janak Singh v. State ofU.P. (2004) 11 SCC 385
18. Kripal v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706: 1954 Cr LJ 1757
19. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 383: 1997 Cr LJ 4444
20. Lakshmi v. Union of India, laws (SC) 2013-12-66.
21. McKinnon v. State 712 So. 2d 1259 (Ct. App. 1998)
22. Nazir v. Emperor, AIR 1948 All 229
23. NityaSen v. State of West Bengal, 1978 AIR 1978 SC 383
24. Parasa Raja ManikyalaRao v. State of A.P.,(2003) 12 SC 306: AIR 2004 SC 132:
2004 CrLJ 390,
25. Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007)13 SCC 530: AIR 2008 SC 441
26. People v. White 536 N.W. 2d 876
27. Ram Bali Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1989 Cr LJ 764

5
 28. Ram Tahal v. State of U.P., 1972 Cr LJ 227: AIR 1972 SC 254
29. R v Burstow& R v Ireland 1997
30. Sarafat Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 Cr LJ 1943 (Gau)
31. Sarvanan v. State of Pondicherry, 2005 Cr LJ 117 SC
32. ShankarlalKacharabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
33. Shaik China Brahmam v. State of A.P., (2007) 14 SCC 457: AIR 2008 SC 610
34. Sivam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 1529
35. SrimanthulaChinnaSathaiah&Ors. v. State of A.P. (1998(4) ALD 18)
36. State v. Saidu Khan, AIR 1961 All 21 (FB)
37. State of Karnataka v. Eshwariah, 1987 Cr Lj 1659
38. State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station vs. Joseph Rodrigues S/o V.Z.
Rodrigues, (22.08.2006)
39. State of M.P. v. Deshraj, (2005) SCC 123.
40. State of Punjab v. Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2693
41. State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, AIR 1983 SC 172
42. State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, 1973 Cr LJ 636: AIR 1973 SC 936
43. State (through CBI) v. Santosh Kumar Singh2007 CrLJ 964.
44. Vishakha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan SCC 1997

JOURNALS REFFERED

ALL INDIA REPORTER

SUPREME COURT CASES
LAW SUIT(Supreme Court)

INTERNET SOURCES
www.unilexlegal.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.manupatra.com

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THIS HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY,

ADJUDICATE AND ENTERTAIN THIS MATTER UNDER ART. 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background facts

Neha, a 22-year old M.Com. Student was a computer professional in Panipat. She belonged to a
middle class family. Her father used to work as a clerk in a private firm. She had always been an
ambitious and a very bright student. To support her family, in her first year of post-graduation
itself, she got a job in a software centre run by a former Indian Air Force employee,
SumitVerma.

Neha in the office developed good understanding and friendly relations with one of her
colleagues, Rahul. Everything was fine for the period of almost 8 months. Hence they convinced
their parents and decided to get married. When Sumit came to know about this, he got frustrated.
He called Neha in her cabin and tried to persuade her not to get married at such point of her
career as getting married would hinder her ambitions in life. He also tried to get intimate with her
by touching her in inappropriate manner but she resisted and warned him to behave properly.
After this incident, Neha started avoiding Sumit even when she used to be in office. Things
turned nasty, when the software centre incurred heavy losses and Neha found herself a new job.
This was unacceptable to Sumit and he tried every possible way to bring Neha back to her firm.

But despite all his efforts, when Neha declined his offer of joining him back again, it hurt his
male chauvinist ego. He got really upset and one day while having drink with his cousin Kailash,
narrated the whole thing to him. Kailash, who was a divorcee, had always encouraged him to
fulfill his wishes, so he suggested him to find Neha alone and take her to the temple for marrying
her without informing anyone. In case Neha would offer any resistance, Kailash would threaten
her with a bottle of acid to pressurize her to come with them to the temple. Sumit, who was
initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Neha and
bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes.

Outline of Incident

On 3rd August, 2013, as per the plan, finding Neha passing on a lonely road, Sumit andKailash,
who were waiting for Neha, got out of the car. Sumit approached Neha and asked her to
accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Neha’s refusal, Kailash carrying

8
the bottle of acid, threatened Neha. Sumit started dragging her into the car. Neha started shouting
loudly. To teach a lesson to Neha, Kailash opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face and
then both Sumit and Kailash fled away in the car belonging to and driven by Kailash leaving the
girl in pain. The girl was taken to the hospital by some passerby. The doctor immediately
conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.

FIR Lodged & Charges Framed

FIR was lodged. Statement of Neha was recorded. A case was registered against both the
accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Sumit was also charged under Sec 354A and
Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Sumit was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and car,
used in the crime, were seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before
the Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Kailash absconded and was
declared proclaimed offender.

Trial before Session Court

Sessions Court convicted Sumit under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to
10 yrs of Rigorous Imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to Neha to the tune of
Rs 3,00,000/-(three lakh only), to be paid immediately. He was also awarded imprisonment for
3 years under Section 354A and Sec. 354D of IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Appeal to High Court

Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High Court seeking acquittal.
Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding life imprisonment and also the enhancement of the
amount of compensation taking into account the following facts:

Rs 8 Lakhs have already been spent on 5 major surgeries done till date;
8-12 surgeries still need to be done;
Despite various surgeries Neha has permanently lost vision of her left eye;
Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also deep
inside her memory which together with loss of vision of her left eye will adversely
Affect her future prospects;

9
 Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on a leave for
her treatment. Now he is jobless. There is one younger sister of Neha who also needs to
be supported.

Held by High Court

The High court adjudicated in favor of the accused by acquitting him from the charges under
Sec.326A r/w Sec. 34, IPC and Sec 354A and Sec. 354D of IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal
of the State, being bereft of any substance. It held that under the circumstances of the case the
Sessions Court had wrongly held the accused liable under Sec. 326A of IPC, by invoking Sec. 34
of IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid attack under Sec. 326A
could be proved. The High Court also held that the offence of stalking under Sec. 354D and
sexual harassment under Sec. 354A was not made out against the accused. The High Court,
however, recommended the State Legal Services Authority to decide upon the quantum of
compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as per Sec. 357A, CrPC
within one month.

Appeal by State to Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused, the State filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court for considering the offence as heinous and to award life
imprisonment under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34, Sec. 354A and Sec. 354D IPC and also to enhance
the compensation awarded by the Sessions Court, to Rs 6,50,000/-(six lakh fifty thousand
only),to be paid by the accused to the victim under Sec. 326A, IPC, 1860, in addition to the
compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC. The State also sought
permission for addition of charge under Sec. 366 IPC.

10
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 326-A r/w

SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GULITY UNDER SECTION 354-A &

354-D OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED FOR VICTIM

& WHEHER LIFE INPRISONMENT CAN BE SENENCED?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER ADDITIONALCHARGE UNDER SECTION 366 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE CAN BE FRAMED AGAINST RESPONDENT?

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY UNDER SEC. 326-A r/w

SEC. 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

This is most respectfully submitted by the Council for Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that
the decision of the High Court in acquitting respondent under charge of Section 326A r/w
Sec. 34 of IPC suffers from serious infirmities which leads to miscarriage of justice and thus the
same must be negated by the Court in the interest of Justice. The totality of circumstances in the
following case is that the Respondent had the actual knowledge that the doer Kailash was
carrying the bottle of acid and was aware that actual act was likely to happen and thus the same
must be negated by the Court in the interest of Justice.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS GULITY UNDER SECTION 354-A &

354-D OF INDIAN PENAL CODE?

This is most respectfully submitted by the Council for Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that
the Respondent has fulfilled the essential ingredients of Section-354A by trying to get intimate
with her by touching victim in inappropriate manner and thus making unwelcomed physical
advances.

Respondent has fulfilled the essential ingredients of Section 354-D by following victim and
contacting her to foster personal interaction despite clear indication of disinterest manifested by
victim. Therefore, Respondent must be held guilty u/s 354-A and Sec. 354-D of IPC.

12
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED FOR VICTIM
AND WHETHER LIFE IMPRSIONMENT CAN BE SENTENCED?

This is most respectfully submitted by the Council for Appellant submits before this Hon’ble
Court that the compensation must be enhanced in the present Case as compensation to victims of
acid attacks is of vital importance as exorbitant medical costs are often involved. The victims of
acid attack need both short term as well as long term specialized medical treatment and plastic
surgeries. Thus, compensation should be enhanced in the present case by considering the
consequences of acid attack at present and in future as well.

The Counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the life imprisonment must be
sentenced to the Respondent in the present Case. As the victim has suffered perpetual torture,
permanent damages and effects of injuries of acid burn will remain for rest of her life. Therefore,
Respondent should be sentenced to life imprisonment in interest of Justice.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER ADDITIONAL CHARGE UNDER SECTION 366 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE CAN BE FRAMED AGAINST RESPONDENT OR NOT?

The Counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the additional charge under Section
366 of IPC, must be framed against the Respondent with the earlier charges framed. According
to Section 216 of CrPC, any Court may alter any charge at any time before the Judgment is
pronounced.

Moreover, Respondent is fulfilling essential ingredients of Section 366 of IPC by compelling

victim to marry him against her will by dragging victim into the car. Thus, Court must allow
additional charge to be framed under Section 366 of IPC so that victim can get justice.

13
 BODY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1: WHEHER THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY UNDER SEC. 326-A r/w SEC. 34
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

This is most respectfully submitted by the Counsel for Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that
decision of High Court in acquitting respondent under charge of Section 326A r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 suffers from serious infirmities which leads to miscarriage of justice,
which is ex-facie evident from the facts of the case, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and
the various judgments available on the subject matter and thus the same must be negated by this
Court:

a) Respondent did not participate in the act, cannot be a ground for acquittal;

b) The common intention was formed at the spur of the moment and which can be
inferred from the conduct of the respondent.

1.1 Section-34 of the IPC recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence.
A bare reading of this section shows that the section could be dissected as follow:
a) Criminal act done by several persons;
b) Such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all;
c) Each of such person is liable in same manners as if it were done by him alone.
1.2 These three ingredients would guide the court in determining whether an accused is liable to
be convicted with the aid of sec 34. While the first two are the acts which are attributable and
have to be proved as actions of the accused, third is the consequence.
1.3 The word “furtherance” in Oxford Legal Dictionary is defined as an “action of
helping forward.” Russel, in his book on Criminal Law adopted this definition and said; “It
indicates some kind of aid or assistance preceding an effect in future and that any act may be
regarded as done in furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step intentionally taken for the
purpose of affecting the felony.

14
1.4 Respondent did not participate in the act, cannot be a ground for acquittal. With respect to the
first submission, the counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the reason all are
deemed guilty under Section 34 is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement,
support and protection to the person actually committing an act. 1 This section really means
that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of
them had done it individually.2 It is a well recognized canon of criminal jurisprudence that
the Court neither distinguish between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were
possible, as to the part taken by each in the crime.
1.5 Before a man can be held liable for acts done by co-conspirator, under the provisions of this
section, it must be established that (i) there was a common intention in the sense of a pre-
arranged plan between the two, and (ii) the person sought to be so held liable had participated
in some manner in the act constituting the offence.3 And both the essentials are being
fulfilled as there was a common intention between the two and the Respondent had
participated in the act. It is not necessary for bringing a case within the scope of Sec. 34 of
IPC to find as to whom in fact committed the act.4 The acts of all the accused need not be the
same or identically similar. It is not necessary to show that any overt act must have been
done by a particular accused. This Section will be attracted if it is established that the
criminal act has been done by all or any one of the accused persons in furtherance of the
common intention.5 And in the instant case, the fact that the respondent didn’t throw the acid
will not matter to attract Sec. 34. To convict the accused by taking the aid of Sec. 34

1
R&D, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Edition, V.R. Manohar, Lexis NexisButterworthsWadhwa, Nagpur, Page 33.
2
B.N. Srikantiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672 : 1958 Cr LJ 1251
3
State of Karnataka v. Eshwariah, 1987 Cr Lj 1659, satisfactory proof of ingredients.Hardeep Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 39 : AIR 2008 SC 3113, ingredients re-stated also in Shaik China Brahmam v. State of
A.P., (2007) 14 SCC 457 : AIR 2008 SC 610; State of M.P. v. Deshraj, (2005) SCC Cri 123.Janak Singh v. U.P.
(2004) 11 SCC 385, nature of the provision and evidence required for its application explained. Dani Singh v. State
of Bihar, 2004 Cr LJ 3328 SC, common intention and participation in crime, both essential, physical presence
necessary where offence involves physical violence, mere presence is not enough unless there is community of
design also. Hamlet v. State of Kerela (2003) 10 SCC 108, restatement of essential ingeredients required to be
proved
4
Supra 2
5
State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, 1973 Cr LJ 636 : AIR 1973 SC 936; where both the accused fired at the deceased
both were convicted without any proof of the fact as to whose fire caused death. Chandra Pal Singh v. State, 1990 Cr
LJ 826 All; State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, AIR 1983 SC 172; See also B.N. Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1990
SC 1628, where the allegation was that while three accused held the deceased the remaining three caused the injuries
all over his body. The accused along with two others armed with deadly weapons, with a common intention to kill a
man to take revenge of the murder of his brother, attacked and killed him on the spot. They were punished under
section sections 302/34. See also Sarafat Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 Cr LJ 1943 (Gau), murder of passenger and
injuries to other by several persons by stopping a bus. All of them convicted under sections 300/34.

15
 inasmuch as the facts, as proved on record, leave no room for doubt that the 'common
intention' of both the accused was to put the grievous hurt to victim.
1.6 It is not necessary for bringing a case within the scope of Sec. 34 of IPC to find as to whom
in fact committed the act6. The acts of all the accused need not be the same or identically
similar. It is not necessary to show that any overt act must have been done by a particular
accused. The section will be attracted if it is established that the criminal act has been done
by all or any one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention7.
1.7 That the common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot as
between a number of persons, and can be inferred from the facts of the case and
circumstances of the situation8. In the case of Hari Om v. State of U.P. 9 the conduct of the
parties was taken into consideration to reach to the conclusion that common intention was
there or not.
1.8 A direct proof of 'common intention' may not always be available and, therefore, such an
intention can be inferred from the circumstances, which appear from the proved facts and/or
proved circumstances. Meeting of minds may be pre-planned or may be formed at the spur of
the moment10. In the case of Krishnan v. State of Kerala11, the accused in question had
caused only superficial injury to the victim, but his complicity was otherwise established. His
6
Supra 2
7
State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, 1973 Cr LJ 636 : AIR 1973 SC 936; where both the accused fired at the deceased
both were convicted without any proof of the fact as to whose fire caused death. Chandra Pal Singh v. State, 1990 Cr
LJ 826 All; State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, AIR 1983 SC 172; See also B.N. Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1990
SC 1628, where the allegation was that while three accused held the deceased the remaining three caused the injuries
all over his body. The accused along with two others armed with deadly weapons, with a common intention to kill a
man to take revenge of the murder of his brother, attacked and killed him on the spot. They were punished under
section sections 302/34. See also Sarafat Ali v. State of Assam, 1 993 Cr LJ 1943 (Gau), murder of passenger and
injuries to other by several persons by stopping a bus. All of them convicted under sections 300/34.
8
Kripal, AIR 1954 SC 706 : 1954 Cr LJ 1757. Where one secured the deceased in his grip and the other stabbed him
thrice causing death and they remained together till their arrest, common intention inferred. Bachittar Singh v. State
(DelhiAdmn.) 1991 Cr LJ 2619. Ram Bali Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1989 Cr LJ 764 Pat, several persons
individually attacking the victim, the only thing common seemed to be that one was that one would not refrain the
other, it became the act of all making them jointly liable.
9
AIR 1993 SCW 666 : 1993 Cr LJ 1383 : 1993 Supp (2) SCC 1.
10
Ibid.
11
AIR 1997 SC 383 : 1997 Cr LJ 4444. Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007)13 SCC 530 : AIR 2008 SC 441, it
is not necessary that each and every companion should have caused fatal injury by his overt act. All that is necessary
is an act in furtherance of common intention though done by only one of them. In this case all of them caused
injuries. It was not necessary to prove who caused the fatal injury. No one could say that he was there out of idle
curiosity. Sarvanan v. State of Pondicherry, 2005 Cr LJ 117 Sc, two accused quarreled with three others. The latter
ignored the assault and proceed on their way. They were chased, quarrel again picked up. A third person joined
them. Injuries were caused to one of the victims who died. Common Intention inferred. All the three were convicted
u/s. 304-II read with sec. 34. Damodar v. State of U.P., 2005 Cr LJ 330 SC, killing on exhortation common
intention, exhortation was for killing.

16
 conviction was accordingly confirmed. The common intention has to be inferred from the act
or conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case in hand.
1.9 The inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived at the scene and
mounted the attack, the determination and concert with which the beating was given or the
injuries caused by one or some of them, the acts done by others to assist those causing the
injuries, the concerted conduct subsequent to the commission of the offence, for instance all
of them left the scene of the incident together and other acts which all or some may have
done as would help in determining the common intention.
1.10 The totality of circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion
whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence of which they could be
convicted12. It is not necessary that the common intention must be to commit the very crime
which is actually committed.
1.11 This Hon’ble Court has reiterated: “We reiterate that for common intention, there could
rarely be direct evidence. The ultimate decision, at any rate would invariably depend upon
the inference deducible from the circumstances of each case. It is settled law that the
common intention or the intention of the individuals concerned in furtherance of the common
intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or
attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties13.” And so the fact that there is
no direct evidence in this case, will not affect the prosecution case, and the inference can be
taken from the conduct of the parties.
1.12 Similarly in the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra 14 , the two accused
spotted their victim in the bus, reached up to him. One sat on his side and other prevented
him from going away. Then the one who sat by his side stabbed him, because of which he
died. The court said that common intention can develop even in the course of transaction.
The Court in this case followed this Hon’ble Court’s decision15citing from it the following
passage: “In order followed to bring a case under Sec. 34 it is not necessary that there must

12
Ram Tahal v. State of U.P., 1972 Cr LJ 227 : AIR 1972 SC 254; see also NityaSen v. State of West Bengal, 1978
AIR 1978 SC 383; Sivam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 1529; Jagdeo Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981
SC 648 (SC); AherPithaVajshi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC 386.
13
Chandreshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr LJ 3085 (Pat), all the appellants came together, surrounded their
victim, and went away together, common intention for murder inferred though some of them did not participate in
the assault. ArjunPrabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 Cr LJ 2409 (Bom) Conviction of collaborators in murder.
14
(1999) 8 SCC 428; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1452 .
15
Hari Om v. State of U.P. AIR 1993 SC 666.

17
 be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation. The common intention can be framed in the course
of occurrence. The law is well settled in this regard.” Our contention is based on the same
reasoning which can be derived from both these cases that in the instant case also the
common intention was developed at the spur of the moment. In the case of Pulla Reddy v.
State of A.P.16, the two accused armed with knives went near the head of the cot on which the
man was lying. One of them stabbed him twice on his chest and then both left together. It
was held that both the accused shared common intention to kill the man and the other
accused, which only stood with knife and did not stab, was also liable to be convicted under
sections 300/34.
1.13 In the instant case the totality of circumstances are the respondent had the actual knowledge
that doer Kailash is carrying a bottle of acid and was aware that actual act was likely to
happen. He was holding the victim when doer Kailash threw the acid on victim. Moreover,
he did not take victim to hospital, but he left the place along with doer Kailash in a car,
carrying acid bottle with them. The acid bottle and the car used in the crime were seized
from his possession by the police. This chain of events is sufficient to fix the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. This sequence of the events itself spelled out a common
intense to attack and cause grievous hurt to the victim.
1.14 Moreover, when doer Kailash was opening bottle of acid, the respondent had not make any
attempt to stop doer by predicating his further act but was holding the victim and was
dragging the victim into the car. Respondent did not make single attempt to rescue victim
from the attack made on her by doer Kailash. Therefore, the injuries were caused to victim in
furtherance of common intention suddenly form.
1.15 Further, if the Respondent had no common intention with doer Kailash, then why he left the
spot with him left the victim in immense pain. This chain of sequence clearly indicates from
the conduct of the respondent that there must be a prior conspiracy or else common intention
was developed at the spur of the moment.
1.16 Therefore, this is a case in which the common intention has been clearly established. The
circumstances as indicated above, there remain no room for doubt that both the accused
aforementioned has the pre mediation of mind developed at the spur of the moment. In the
face of these facts, which are clearly proven on record, there can be no reason to doubt that

16
AIR 1993 SC 1899, Sadhasivam v. State of Inspector of Police, 1992 Cr Lj 2010 (Mad).

18
both the accused had acted in furtherance of their 'common intention', the 'common intention'
so in the instant case, the fact that the respondent didn’t throw the acid will not matter to
attract Sec. 34. To convict the accused by taking the aid of Sec. 34 inasmuch as the facts, as
proved on record, leave no room for doubt that the 'common intention' of both the accused
was to put the grievous hurt to victim. Hence, respondent is liable for conviction under
Section-326-A with aid of Section 34.

19
ISSUE 2: WHETHER RESPONDENT IS GUILTY UNDER SEC. 354-A & 354-D OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE?

This is most respectfully submitted by Counsel for the Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that
the acts of the accused fulfill every ingredient of Section 354A and 354D of Indian Penal Code,
1860, which is ex-facie evident from the facts of the case, the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code and various judgments available on the subject-matter.

2.1 Bare Reading of the Section 354A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 says: A man committing any
of the following acts:
Physical Contact or any advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
a demand or request for sexual favors; or
Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
Making sexually colored remarks.
2.2 The Respondent on learning that Victim was in relation with her colleague and had decided
to get married, he tried to establish physical contact towards Victim by calling Victim in his
cabin and tried to deceive her not to get married in such stage of her career and also tried to
get intimate with her by touching her in an inappropriate manner. The victim protested mala
fide attempt of accused to get physical with her and warned him then and there to behave
properly and not to repeat such cheap acts again in future. After this incident, victim started
avoiding respondent when she used to be in office.
2.3 Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances where under the victim of such
conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim's employment or work
whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or
private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety
problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe
that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work
including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse
consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or
raises any objection thereto.

20
2.4 Stare Decisis is a well-known doctrine in legal jurisprudence. The doctrine of stare decisis,
meaning to stand by decided cases, rests upon the principle that law by which men are
governed should be fixed, definite and known, and that, when the law is declared by court of
competent jurisdiction authorized to construe it, such declaration, in absence of palpable
mistake or error, is itself evidence of the law until changed by competent authority.
2.5 In leading Case of Vishaka & Ors V/s State of Rajasthan17the Supreme Court of India has
stated that Sexual harassment includes “such unwelcome sexually determined behavior as
physical contacts and advance, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual
demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a
health and safety problem; it is discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to
believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment,
including recruiting or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment.
Effective complaints procedures and remedies, including compensation, should be provided.”
With reference to above the judgment, the conduct of Respondent to call victim in his office
on learning that she was getting married to her colleague and trying to deceive her not to get
married and touching victim in inappropriate manner is clear indication that he tried to
establish physical contact with victim. Despite several warnings given by victim he tried to
establish physical contact which forced her to quit he job makes him liable for sexual
harassment.
2.6 Bare Reading of the Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 says: A Man who-
Follows a woman and contacts such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly
despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
Monitors the use by woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
Communication; Commits the offence of Stalking.
2.7 In the Instant Case, both these essentials are fulfilled. Respondent followed her and tried to
contact victim repeatedly in spite of sheer disinterest shown by her. Victim gave a clear
indication to him not to follow her anymore; despite this indication he continued to follow
her repeatedly. The fact that she refused and warned the prime accused then and there when
he tried to make physical contact with her is evident in itself that she was not interested in
him. Therefore, it is clear that even after being consistently ignored, he continued following

17
SCC 1997.

21
 her and tried contacting her, against her disinterest, and so the conduct of the respondent will
fall under the purview of Sec 354-D (1)(i) of IPC.
2.8 In State (through CBI) v. Santosh Kumar Singh18, the accused was charged under
Sec. 354 of IPC for the offence of Stalking. It was held that continuous Stalking of victim by
accused should alter disregard for the rule of law and he had a strong motive of commission
of alleged crime.
2.9 In the case of R v Burstow& R v Ireland19 the House of Lords decided that “stalkers who
cause psychological injury to their victims can be prosecuted for the criminal offences of
causing actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm even where they have not physically
attacked their victim”. In one such case of U.S McKinnon v. State20 it was held that “State
need not prove intent to cause fear, only that fear occurred as result of intentional acts”.
2.10 The fact that Respondent tried to establish physical contact with Victim by calling her in his
office and despite warning given by her to behave properly trying to establish physical
contact with her is in itself evident that accused sexually harassed the victim due to which
she was forced to quit her job and to follow victim and trying to foster personnel
communication reflects the ideology that he wanted to get her or break her. Henceforth, it is
visible from the above said arguments and cases cited that the acts of respondents attract
penal provision as laid down in Section 354-A and Section 354-D of IPC, 1860 and they
should be made liable/penalized according to law.

18
2007 CrLJ 964.
19
R v Burstow& R v Ireland, 1997
20
712 SO. 2d 1259 (Ct. App. 1998). In People v/s Payton it was held that, “course of conduct define to mean a
series of act over a period of time, however short. Intention to place victim in fear is an element of stalking crime.”

22
ISSUE 3: WHETHER COMPENSATION CAN BE ENHANCED FOR VICTIM &
WHETHER LIFE IMPRISONMENT CAN BE SENENCED?

This is most respectfully submitted by Counsel for the Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that
the compensation can be enhanced for victim and life imprisonment should be sentenced in the
present case for his brutal act which is ex-facie evident from the facts of the case, the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and various Judgments available on the subject-matter.

3.1 Compensation to victims of acid attacks is of vital importance as exorbitant medical costs are
often involved. The victim of acid attack need both short term as well as long term
specialized medical treatments and plastic surgeries. These all aspect must be taken into
consideration while imposing fine on respondent as well as awarding compensation to the
victim.
3.2 Furthermore, an acid attack has long-lasting consequences on the life of the victim who faces
perpetual torture, permanent damage and other problems for the rest of her life. In the instant
case, victim will feel worthless, afraid and modified and become social outcasts because of
her appearance formed after the attack. She may become too traumatized and embarrassed to
walk out of her house and carry out simple tasks let alone get married, have children, get a
job, go to school, etc. Even if she is willing to pursue a normal life, there is no guarantee that
society itself will treat her as normal human being given her appearance and disabilities after
an attack. She may not be able to work, or be able to find a job, and thus perpetually struggle
to survive.21
3.3 As a result of disfigurement and disability victims are permanently debilitated and are forced
to give up their lives, their work, and their education. In this regard, compensation to cover
vital surgeries for victims who can no longer support themselves becomes imperative.22
There is a great probability that victim will permanently disfigured, maimed and confined to
the four walls of her house for life.

21
Baseline Survey with International Comparative Analysis of the Legal Aspects of Acid Violence in Uganda,
22
The Hindu, “THE ACID TEST”: will Government regulate sale of deadly chemicals?,Bageshree S. and M.V.
Chandreshekhar, 5Th February, 2007.

23
3.4 Acid attack survivors are physically, psychologically, and socially traumatized. The physical
extents of their injuries are deep, permanent and have a direct impact on their psychological
well-being and social functionality. As a result of disfigurement and disability victims are
permanently debilitated and are forced to give up their lives, their work, and their education.
In this regard, compensation to cover vital surgeries for victims who can no longer support
themselves becomes imperative.
3.5 The Counsel humbly submits to the Hon`ble Court that the amount of compensation awarded
by the Session Court is insufficient to meet the medical expenses of the victim. The
calculation by the session court was erroneously made under the various heads. The appellant
further submits that the compensation should be enhanced from Rs.3,00,000/-
(three lakh rupees) to Rs. 6,50,000/- (six lakh fifty thousand rupees). Compensation must be
awarded on the basis of the following heads:
Rs 8 Lakhs have already been spent on 5 major surgeries done till date;
8-12 surgeries still need to be done;
Despite various surgeries victim has permanently lost vision of her left eye;
Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also deep
inside her memory which together with loss of her left eye will adversely affect her
future prospects;
Her Father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on leave for
her treatment. Now he is jobless. There is one younger sister of neha who also needs to
be supported.
3.6 She will face a lifetime of discrimination from society and they become lonely. She will be
embarrassed that people may stare or laugh at them and may hesitate to leave their homes
fearing an adverse reaction from the outside world. She is not likely to get married and she
has got serious disabilities because of the attack, like blindness in left eye, will not find jobs
and earn a living. Discrimination from other people, or disabilities such as blindness, will
make it very difficult for her to fend for herself.
3.7 The attacker cannot bear the fact that he has been rejected and seeks to destroy the body of
the woman who has dared to stand up to him. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and
deliberately. Acid violence is a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime
carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, carrying it on him and then stalking the

24
 victim before executing the act. The same has happened in the instant case as the acid was
poured on the face of victim because she refused and resisted to get married with the
respondent.
3.8 Apart from the above compensation from the accused, in addition the State Government
should also award compensation to the victim u/s 357(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 to meet the medical expenses incurred by the victim on her different surgeries.
3.9 Guide line for various heads for compensation by the Apex Court to be taken into
consideration for the victims of sexual assault & acid attack23.
Expenses actually and reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of the victims
injury or death;
Pecuniary loss or damages incurred by the victim as a result of total or partial disability
affecting the victim`s capacity for work;
Pecuniary loss or damages incurred by the dependents as a result of the victim`s death;
Pain & Suffering ;
Maintenance of a child born as a result of sexual assault;
Other Pecuniary loss or damage resulting from the victim`s injury and any expense that in
the opinion of the board it is reasonable to incur.
3.10 In one of the most landmark case involving acid attack 24the accused threw acid on a girl,
Hasina, for refusing his job offer. This deeply scarred her physical appearance, changed the
colour and appearance of her face and left her blind. The accused was convicted u/s 307 of
IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(two lakh) in
addition to the Trial Court fine of Rs.3,00,000/-(three lakh) was to be paid by the accused to
Hasina's parents. This was a landmark case as it was the first time that a compensation which
was quite a large sum was given to the victim to meet the medical expenses including that of
plastic surgeries. In the instant matter also the circumstances of the case are similar to a very
large extent and the amount of compensation awarded earlier by the Court is very less and
inadequate. It is thus pleaded before this Court to enhance the amount of compensation in
order to facilitate the victim to meet medical expenses including that of plastic surgeries.

23
Laxmi v. Union of India LAWS (SC) 2013-12-66
24
State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station v/s Joesph Rodrigues S/o V.Z. Rodrigues

25
3.11 Henceforth, looking to the facts/circumstances in the instant matter and on considering the
above heads, landmark judgements and rulings given by the Apex Court in various cases, it is
humbly submitted and prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the compensation should be
enhanced from 3,00,000/- (three lakh rupees) to 6,50,000/- (six lakh fifty thousand rupees).

Whether Life Imprisonment can be sentenced to the Accused?

This is most submitted by the Counsel for Appellant before this Hon’ble Court that life
imprisonment should be sentenced to accused in the present case for his brutal act based on the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code and various judgments available on the subject-matter.

3.12 In the present case, as per pre-arranged plan Sumit & doer Kailash approach victim & asked
her to accompany to temple, so they can get married. But on the resistance of the victim
Kailash open the bottle & threw acid on her face. While the accused was holding hands of the
victim & dragging victim into car and helping Kailash to threw acid on her. And after attack
they fled away in car, leaving behind victim in pain. After effect of the attack was so brutal
that victim has lost vision of her left eye permanently and very serious burns on her face &
other parts of the body. So, the accused is liable for his he act.
3.13 In one of the most landmarks cases involving acid attack 25, the accused threw acid on a girl
Hasina, for refusing his job offer. This deeply scarred her physical appearance, changed the
colour and appearance of her face and left her blind. The accused was convicted under
Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. A compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-(two lakh) in addition to the Trial Court fine of Rs.3,00,000/-(three lakh) was to
be paid by the accused to Hasina’s parents. This was a landmark case as it was the first time
that a compensation which was quite a large sum was given to the victim to meet the medical
expenses including that of plastic surgeries.
3.14 In Srimanthula Chinna Sathaiah and Anr. Vs. State of A.P.26enmity developed between two
men. The accused was suspicious that the other person had falsely implicated him in a case.
He also suspected that his wife was having an affair with victim’s elder son. As a revenge the
accused threw acid on the victim, which resulted in severe acid burns on the face and body.

25
State of Karnataka vs. Joseph Rodrigues S/o V.Z. Rodrigues
26
(998(40ALD 18)

26
 The accused was charged under Section 302 and 34 of the IPC and was awarded rigorous
imprisonment for life.
3.15 In a case before the SC27 in a dispute between the deceased and accused regarding
encroachment, the accused poured acid on the deceased and this caused severe acid burns
resulting in death. The main accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC and awarded
rigorous imprisonment for life.
28
3.16 In a 1998 Maharashtra case acid was thrown on a woman, while she was holding her two
and a half year old baby, by her brother-in-law for refusing to give money to maintain her
husband’s second wife. She sustained acid burns on the left side of her face, left hand and left
breast and both she and her infant daughter lost their eyesight. The woman finally died due to
burn injuries. In this case, the brother-in-law was sentenced by the Court under Section 302
of IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000 and also sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a month. Under Section 326 of the IPC he was awarded 5 years of
imprisonment apart from a fine of Rs.2000/-and 3 months of rigorous imprisonment.
3.17 Furthermore an acid attack has long-lasting consequences on the life of the victim who faces
perpetual torture, permanent damage and other problems for the rest of her. In the instance
case, victim will feel worthless afraid and modified and become social outcasts because of
her appearance formed after attack. Even if she is willing to purse a normal life, there is no
guarantee that society itself will treat her as normal human being given her appearance and
disabilities after an attack. She may not be able to work, or be able to find a job and thus
perpetually struggle to survive.

Therefore, considering the above aspect, and seeing the brutality committed on victim, the
Respondent should be awarded sentence to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life.

27
Bharati v/s State of UP (AIR 1974 SC 839)
28
GulabSahiblalShaikh v/s State of Maharashtra (1998 Bom CR(Cri))

27
ISSUE 4: WHETHER ADDITIONAL CHARGE UNDER SEC. 366 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE CAN BE FRAMED AGAINST RESPONDENT?

This is most respectfully submitted by Counsel for the Appellant before this Hon`ble Court that
additional charge u/s 366 of IPC, must be framed to the charges earlier framed against
respondent. That according to Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure (here after called as
CrPC), any court may alter or add to any charge any time before the judgment is framed.

4.1 The Counsel humbly submits that the charge u/s 366 may be added to the charges framed
earlier. This submission is two folds-
charges can be added at any time before the judgment pronounced;
All the ingredients of Section 366 of IPC are fulfilled.
4.2 Charges can be added at any time before the judgment pronounced- It is humbly submitted
that according to Section 216(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter CrPC), any court
may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.29
4.3 In State of Punjab v. Harjagdev Singh30 court held that if all of the section is complied with
then an error or irregularity in framing the charge will not upset the trial because no inquiry
took place in the defense on merits. His acquittal on this ground was not proper.
4.4 Adding charge on later stage and not on former stage cannot be a ground for refusal to frame
additional charge. Court can add or alter any charge before the final judgment is pronounced,
by giving an opportunity to accuse to take appropriate defense against additional charge
framed.31In present case charge u/s 366 of IPC remained unframed, thus, court must allow
the addition to the charge u/s 366 of IPC, and so that victim can get justice.

29
Page 382 kelkar R. V., Criminal Proceduer, 5th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
30
AIR 2009 SC 2693
31
Madan Raj Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1970 SC 436

28
4.5 Further it is humbly submitted before this Hon`ble Court that all the essential ingredients of
charge u/s 366 of IPC are fulfilled against the accused on the following submission:
a. Kidnapping or abducting of any women.
b. The act must done:
i. with that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will; or
ii. knowing that she will be so compelled; or
iii. in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; or
iv. Knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced.
4.6 In case of Gabbu v. State of M.P.32 this court held that unless the prosecution proves that the
abduction is for purpose mentioned in Sec. 366 of IPC, the Court cannot hold accused guilty.
In the instant conduct of accused, and according to various judgments, the accused must be
held guilty as it is clear that he threatened victim with bottle of acid and tried to compel her
to marry him. According to their plan they follow her and when they saw her alone on a
lonely road went to her and tried to forcefully take her to the temple. When the victim
resisted herself, they threw acid on her and fled.
4.7 Therefore, it is clearly incurred from the facts that Sumit wanted to marry the victim. Thus,
his intentions were to compel her to marry him. In many occasions the victim had showed
Sumit that she would not like to marry her. He also tried to get intimate with her by touching
her in an inappropriate manner. In spite that incident victim started avoiding Sumit even
when she used to be in office. Though despite of ignorance Sumit wanted to marry victim
against her will and without her consent clearly attracts the provisions of this section.
4.8 It cannot be a ground that charge is added on later stage not on former stage. Court can even
add a charge without framing proper charge under the appropriate section of law and without
affording any opportunity to accuse to take appropriate defense against additional charge.

In present case charge u/s 366 of IPC remained unframed, thus, Court must allow the addition to
the charge u/s 366 of IPC, and so that victim can get Justice.

32
(2006) 5 SCC 740

29
 PRAYER

Wherefore it may be please this Honourable Court in the lights of facts presented, issues raised,
Arguments Advanced, and authorities citied, the counsel for appellant
Humbly pray before this Honourable Court,to kindly adjudge and declare:

1) THAT THE ORDER OF H ON`BLE HIGH COURT TO BE QUASH & SET ASIDE .
2) THAT LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO RESPONDENT .
3) THAT AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC AGAINST THE RESPONDENT MUST BE
FRAMED.

4) THAT THE COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIM SHALL BE ENHANCED TO RS .6,50,000/-

And pass any other appropriate order as Court may deem fit and for this act of
Kindness, the Appellant as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/-
Counsel for the Appellant

30