BEFORE THE COURT OF HIGH COURT

AJEET(PROSECUTION)

V.

AMAR SINGH (DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGES UNDER:

SECTION 300 CLAUSE (4) OF MURDER OF

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. 3

Index of Authorities................................................................................................................4

Table of Cases.........................................................................................................................5

Books

Lexicons

Websites

Statues

Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................6

Statements of Facts................................................................................................................7

Statement of Charges.............................................................................................................8

Summary of Arguments..........................................................................................................9

Arguments Advanced

Issue-1...................................................................................................................................10

Issue-2....................................................................................................................................12

Prayer....................................................................................................................................15

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Hon’ble Honourable
v. versus
S. section
IPC Indian Penal Code,1860
AP Andhra Pradesh
AIR All India Reporter
AIR SC All India Reporter Supreme Court

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1 State of Karnataka v. Mohd. Ismail, 1988

2 M.H. Lokre v. State of Maharashtra, 1971
3 Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra
4 Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration
5 Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan
6 Purnaram v. State
7 K. Nagaraju v. The State Of A.P, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P
Hyderabad

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

4
BOOKS

Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (11thedition)

WEBSITES

https://blog.ipleaders.in/

https://www.academia.edu/

https://indiankanoon.org/

STATUES

INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants Humbly approach the Hon'ble High Court under S.374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows:

S.374. Appeals from conviction

1.Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

2.Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may
appeal to the High Court.

3.Save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,

a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

b. sentenced under section 325, or

c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section
300 by any Magistrate,

i
may appeal to the court.’

The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ajeet was a boy aged 14 years residing in a hostel of the Brilliant Education School,
Patiala. He was a student of class 9th. He was run over by the bus driven by the appellant
Amar Singh in the middle of the Hill Road and died on the spot.

2. The investigation by the police revealed that there was evidence to the effect that even the
passengers in the bus alarmed of the enormous speed in which it was being driven and had
cautioned the driver to stop even crying, as they had seen the school children crossing the
road in a queue.

3. The investigation also revealed that even the children crossing the road had raised both
hands for stopping the vehicle. The passengers and pedestrians were of the view that the bus
was being driven at a high speed and that they had cried aloud to stop the bus.

4. It was, in spite of all these, that the bus ran over the said student on his head and the bus
could be stopped only 15 to 20 ft ahead of the spot of occurrence.

5. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under clause (4) of section 300 for Murder.
Hence this appeal.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

7
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Amar Singh has been charged under section 300 clause (4) of the Indian Penal Code ,1860
for the crime of murder.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE –1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER 304(a) OF IPC,1860?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused Amar Singh is not guilty of
the offence of murder as he never intended to harm the victim, neither is there any direct
evidence to that fact that there was any intention behind the accused actions besides the
accused actions were the mere act of negligence which caused the death of the victim.

Hence the crime of murder cannot stand against the accused as the element of intention in
murder cannot be proved and the victim died by negligence on the part of accused.

ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE SESSIONS COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN SENTENCING THE

ACCUSED WITH LIFE IMPRIOSENMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT
COMMITTED BY HIM?

It is humbly contended that in Hon’ble Session Court Amar Singh was accused of murder in
clause (4) of section 300 of IPC,1860 but as cleared in issue 1 that the intention to harm or
kill victim was not evident and act of the accused was of negligence \ rash driving which is
explain in section 279, 337 and 338 0f IPC,1860

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-1

WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER 304A OF IPC,1860?

It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court held the Appellant as Guilty of
murder of Ajeet under Section 300 clause (4) of IPC. IPC envisages commission of murder
by two or more people in furtherance of a common intention. Section 300 of IPC gives the
definition of murder and enumerates the ingredients of the offence.

Section 300 of Indian Penal Code contemplates that a person is guilty of murder if he
intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely
to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of
nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause
death of that person.

Ingredients of Murder
• Causing death: There should be an intention of causing death,
• Doing an act: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely
to cause death, or
• The act must be done: with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause the death of
another.

It is humbly contended that the accused did not intentionally commit murder of the victim.
The investigation also cannot reveal any relative or valid reason that could lead to the fact
that the accused intentionally wanted to kill the victim by running the bus over the victim.

Intention

It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

10
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused was never to harm or take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder.

It is contended that the acts of the accused were mere act of negligence which led to death by
negligence. Section 304A of IPC explains death by negligence.

Causing Death by negligence (Section 304A)

Under Section 304A of IPC, if someone causes the death of another due to rash or negligent
act that does not amount to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment which can
extend up to two years or with fine or both.

Cases
State of Karnataka v. Mohd. Ismail, 1988
In this case, a 28-year-old motorcyclist had pushed an 85-year-old man from behind. The old
man died on spot due to head injuries attained at the time of the accident. The death was a result
of rash and negligent conduct.

M.H. Lokre v. State of Maharashtra, 1971

In this case, the appellant who was not driving rashly was not held guilty under this section for
causing the death of the person who came under the wheels of the vehicle while suddenly
crossing the road. A man however vigilant and slowly he might be driving he cannot avert an
accident if a person suddenly comes in front of his vehicle while suddenly crossing the road.

Bhalachandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra, the appellant was charged under Section
304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a 21-year woman by driving his car
rashly and negligently in the road. The famous case of Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration is
a classic example of doing a negligent act in driving along a public highway.

The prosecution fails to pinpoint how the accused is intentionally responsible for the murder
of victim as it is contended by the arguments mentioned above that the accused has never
intended to murder the victim it was the act of negligence which caused the death of the
victim. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the charge of murder
against the accused cannot be made in the present matter.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

11
ISSUE-2

WHETHER THE SESSIONS COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN SENTENCING THE

ACCUSED WITH LIFE IMPRIOSENMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT
COMMITTED BY HIM?

It is humbly contended that in Hon’ble Session Court The investigation by the police revealed
that there was evidence to the effect that even the passengers in the bus alarmed of the
enormous speed in which it was being driven and had cautioned the driver to stop even
crying, as they had seen the school children crossing the road in a queue.

The investigation also revealed that even the children crossing the road had raised both
hands for stopping the vehicle. The passengers and pedestrians were of the view that the bus
was being driven at a high speed and that they had cried aloud to stop the bus. It was, in spite
of all these, that the bus ran over the said student on his head and the bus could be stopped
only 15 to 20 ft ahead of the spot of occurrence.

As the facts revealed that bus driver was driving rashly. Section 279 ,337 and 338 enumerates
rash driving this

Section 279 of IPC mentions rash driving or riding in a public way. It lays that: “Whoever
drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to
endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be
punished with im-prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section talks about endangering human life or causing hurt by driving

In the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan. 2012 AIR SCW 4659, Apex Court has
observed that, a person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for
the act as well as for the result and that it may not always possible to determine with
reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently and
that even when one is driving a vehicle at slow speed, but, recklessly and negligently, it
would amount to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the language of Section
279 IPC.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

12
Section 337
Section 337 under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the provision on causing hurt by an act
that endangers life or personal security of others. The section says, “Whoever causes hurt to any
person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of
others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

This Section talks about endangering human life and the personal safety of others by doing any act
negligently or rashly. The Section does not describe the nature of the act, so it includes a vast purview
of the act, and hence driving on road can also be included.

Purnaram v. State
COURT: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

This Section provides for the provision on causing grievous hurt by an act that endangers life
or personal security of others. The section says, “Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person
by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of
others, shall be punished with impris-onment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

This Section talks about endangering human life and the personal safety of others by doing
any act negligently or rashly so that a grievous hurt is caused. Again here, the nature of the
act is not defined, so driving can be included.

K. Nagaraju v. The State Of A.P, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P Hyderabad
COURT: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

...Sec.279 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine 10
days SI, under Sec.337 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months SI with fine of Rs. 500/- and in....
Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the basis of parcha bayan, an FIR No. 17/2002 for offence
under Sec.279, 337 and 304A IPC was registered and upon this, after usual investigation,
police...default to further undergo five days additional SI and under Sec.304A IPC and sentenced to
undergo one year SI and fine of Rs. 3500/- and in default of fine to further undergo two months

Section 338
...under section 338 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec.337 IPC. 3 The brief...24.8.2001,
passed by the II Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, were confirmed.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

13
2 The petitioner was convicted for the offences under sections 304-a, 338 and 337

of IPC ...under Sec.304-A IPC and further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four
months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month for the offence

It is contended that all the sections mentioned above explains rash driving and as the
investigation revealed that accused was driving negligently and as it was evidently that the
bus was stopped only 15 to 20 ft ahead of the spot of occurrence.

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

14
 PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Defence humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudged, hold and declare:

Acquit Amar Singh of the offence of committing murder under section 300 clause (4) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

AND\OR

Pass any other relief that the honourable court may be pleased to grant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly submitted.

Place:

Date: COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

15