WASEEM UL HASSAN

BALLB 8TH SEMESTER

19042125034
INDIVIDUAL

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT ROHINI, DELHI

STATE OF DELHI

(PROSECUTION)

V.

ANSHUMAN &Anr.

(DEFENDANT)

VITASTA SCHOOL OF LAW AND HUMANITIES

UPON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTOR

1
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Table of Content II

2. List of Abbreviations IV

3. List of Sources/Authorities/Index of Authorities V

4. Statement of Jurisdiction VI

5. Statement of Facts VII

6. Statement of Charges VIII

7. Statement of Issues XI

8. Summary of Arguments XII

9. Arguments Advanced XIII

I Whether accused is liable for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ?
IIWhether the accused is also liable for homicide of the child?

III Whether Motilal is liable for abetting the murder of the deceased ?

2
10. Prayer/Relief Sought XXII

11. Annexure XXIII

3
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
DW Defence Witness
Ed. Edition
Guj Gujarat High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
Mad Madras High Court
n. Foot Note no.
Ori Orissa High Court
p. Page No.
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter

4
 List of Sources/Authorities/Index of Authorities

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

BOOKS REFERENCES

Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)
Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)

WEBSITES
Indian kanoon
Judis.nic
Casemine
Law legal services
SCC online
Law Octopus

5
CASE LAWS

No. Case Laws

Abdul Ise Suleman v State of Gujrat

1

2 Awadh Mahto& Awadhesh Prasad ... vs The State Of Bihar

3 Brij Bhushan v State of U.P AIR 1957 SC 460i

4 Fatta v Emperor 30 CR LJ 481

5 Girja prasad Singh and othrs v Emperor

6 Ghasi Ram v State AIR 1952 M.P.25

7 Khem Karan And Ors. vs State Of U.P

8 Kesar singh v State of Haryana 2008 15 SCC753

Prabha Alias Swayamprabha V State of Kerala 1994 cri LJ 569 Khem Karan And Ors. vs
9 State Of U.P

10 State of Maharashtra v Mayor Hens George AIR 1965 SC722

11 ShanabhaiBalub v state of Gujrat

12 Virsasingh v state of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section
209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial -

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.’

Read with Section 209:

‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it-

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during,
and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to
be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Trisha and Anshuman were happily married and they had a baby boy, aged 2 years.
They had a servant, Motilal who has been working with Anshuman’s family since 17
years. He used to live with Trisha and Anshuman in their house.

2) Trisha was an extrovert female. She loved to dance and attend parties while Anshuman
was an introvert and confined himself to the four walls of the house after returning from
office.

3) Trisha was able to make friends very easily since she enjoyed spending time with
people. This often led to differences between Anshuman and Trisha. Anshuman wanted
Trisha to attend to their baby boy and often felt that she is not giving time to her family.
Anshuman often discussed about Trisha with Motilal also.

4) On several occasions, Anshuman even accused Trisha of having an extra marital affair
with Ramesh to which Trisha always denied.

5) One night Trisha went to the kitchen to get milk for their baby boy leaving her phone
behind. The phone rang and Anshuman answered the call which was Ramesh’s.
Ramesh without waiting for Anshuman to say ‘Hello’ said ‘Let’s meet tonight once
your husband has slept.’ Upon hearing this, Anshuman started shouting at Ramesh and
told him to stay away from his wife.

6) Anguished, Anshuman went to the kitchen where Trisha was making milk for their
child. In a fit of frenzy, Anshuman threw boiling milk on Trisha’s face leading to burns.
Thereafter he started beating her mercilessly.

7) Trisha started shouting ‘Save me! Save me!’. That very moment their child came
running towards his mother, Trisha and Trisha carried him in her arms. Not having any
control over his body, Anshuman pushed Trisha due to which the child fell from her
arms and his head was hit with the sharp corner of the kitchen slab. The child started
bleeding profusely.

8) By this time, Motilal who was sleeping in the servant room also came to the kitchen.
He found the child lying unconscious on the floor in a pool of blood. He immediately
carried the child in his arms but the child was not breathing. He thought the child died

8
 because of Trisha’s carelessness and Anshuman is beating Trisha because she is
responsible for causing the death of the child.

9) Anshuman was already beating Trisha. Trisha then attempted to run out of the kitchen
towards the main gate. Motilal reached at the main gate before Trisha, and bolted the
gate with a lock. Anshuman followed her with a sharp edged knife (which he found in
one of the drawers of the kitchen while searching for an instrument to kill his wife).
Thereafter, Anshuman stabbed Trisha on her chest. Trisha fell on the floor unconscious.

10) It was then that Anshuman realized what all happened. He started crying and blaming
himself for the entire incident. But Trisha took her last breath 30 minutes after the third
stab.

9
 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Mr. Anshuman has been charged under section 304 for death of his child

Mr. Anshuman & Mr. Motilal has been charged with section 302 of the Indian penal code,1860
for the crime of Murder.

10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether Mr. Anshuman is liable for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ?

2. Whether the Mr. Anshuman is also liable for homicide of the child ?

3. Whether Motilal is liable under section 114,302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 ?

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The following arguments are most humbly presented before the Hon’ble court for
the adjudication with due respect:

ISSUE 1

Whether Mr. Anshuman is liable for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the accused intentionally killed his
wife for having an affair with another. He stabbed his wife many times which clearly
shows that he wanted and had the knowledge that his act would cause the death of the
deceased and thus is liable under section 302 of the Indian penal code.

ISSUE 2

Whether the Mr. Anshuman is also liable for death of the child?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of culpable
homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended as per
section 301. His actions were meant for Trisha but it caused death of the child and
doctrine of transfer of malice will be applicable. He not intentionally wanted to cause
death of the child but his act led to the death of the act.

ISSUE 3

Whether Motilal is liable under section 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty of abetting the
murder of Mrs. Trisha with Mr. Anshuman as his acts were in accordance as to help
anshuman commit the crime,Bolting the door and not letting the deceased escape
thescene and further not stopping the accused from stabbing the deceased all present the
aid that was provided by him in commission of the offence.

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
Whether Mr. Anshuman is liable for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code?
1. It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of
murder under Sec 302, IPC. Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing
murder.`

2. In order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is

pertinent to refer to Sec 300, IPC which elucidates the essentials of murder.
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.

3. the Prosecution humbly contends that both, the actus reus and the mens rea of the
crime are established in the instant matter, negating any claims of grave and
sudden provocation.

4. Actus reus is any wrongful act. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the
physical conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant
case, the actus reus was established by the act of stabbing Mrs. Trisha with a
knife in the chest which is a fatal wound.
In Case of State of Maharashtra V. Meyer Hans George1Mens rea is considered
as guilty intention, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the accused. It is
submitted that the intention to kill is established in light of clear-cut motive of the
1
AIR 1965 SC 722

13
 accused which was his jealousy and accusation made by Anshuman on Trisha for
having an affair with Ramesh which she always denied.
5. The facts clearly states that Mr. Anshuman accused Mrs. Trisha for having an
affair but she always denied it. There was no actual proof that miss trisha actually
had an affair with Mr Ramesh,and just by misinterpreting the phone call he
decided to kill his wife.There was a mere suspicion and not a conclusive proof of
the deceased having an affair.The accused already had the suspicion for quite
some time as he already talked about it with the deceased and she clearly denied
that.
6. In this case the provocation cannot be said to be grave by just hearing from mr
Ramesh to meet the deceased after he slept can only give a mere suspicion and
not more than that and that much the accused already knew.

7. This a a clear cut case of murder as even after throwing the hot boiling milk on
the deceased’s face and ,beating her for some time he had plenty of time to cool
down and control his anger. Even after seeing his son getting injured. he could
have stopped by seeing his son in a pile of blood but he already had made up the
mind that he won’t stop until he kills his wife.The accused had the requisite mens
rea to commit said crime, and he even had a motive to carry out said act.
8. Moreoverstabbing his wife multiple times could only show the intention of killing
his wife and nothing more
9. In GhasiRam v State .Stabbing 2wife with the aid of torch in middle of the back
with such force as to penetrate the spinal cavity , the intention could only have
been to kill her.
10. Similarly in this case stabbing the deceased after continuous beating multiple
times in the chest clarly shows the intention to kill her.
11. Section 300 (3): A General Overview
The section provides that, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death
is caused:

2
AIR 1952 MP.25

14
 Is done with an 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. For cases to fall within Clause (3), it is not necessary that the
3456
offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the
intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature{Virsa Singh v State of Punjab.
12. A similar judgement was given in Kesar Singh v State of Haryana. It was held
that the injury caused should be with the intention of causing it, if it is sufficient
in ordinary course to cause death then it would amount to murder.
13. In this case too the injury caused by the accused was sufficient in the ordinary
course to cause death of anyone hence he is liable for murder under 302 IPC.
14. Brij Bhushan v State of U.P where it is shown that the injuries caused are of
dangerous character then lingering of the deceased for 12 days woiuld also not
help.
15. In another case, there was an intention to cause an injury to the victim. A single
knife blow was administered, which accidently fell upon the left shoulder cutting
a wound through it and tearing up vital arteries which came in the path of knife.
The injury was su7fficient in the8 ordinary course of nature to cause death. Held
that to come under thirdly of Sec. 300, the intention to cause the requisite type of
injury is absolutely necessary.
16. Where an accused sees his wife in company with her lover and kills her, he must
be held to have acted under grave and sudden provocation [Fatta v. Emperor, 30
Cr. L.J. 481]. However, mere suspicion of unchastity would not be a sudden
provocation.

3
AIR 1958 SC 465
4
[2008] 15 SCC 753
5
AIR 1957 SC 460
6

7
AIR 1966 SC 1874
8

15
ISSUE 2

Whether the Mr. Anshuman is also liable for death of the child?

1) It is humbly contended that the accused is guilty for committing the offenceunder section
301 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 301 states culpablehomicide by causing
death of the person other than person whose death wasintended.
2) Section 301 states –
Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose deathwas
intended.—If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to belikely to cause
death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he
neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed
by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the
death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.
3) As per the given facts, Mrs Trisha had her baby boy in her arms when Mr Anshuman
pushed her. As a prudent and reasonable man, he knew the consequences that pushing
Trisha or causing hurt to her while their baby boy where in Trisha’s arms would cause
hurt to the baby boy as well. Hence this act of Mr Anshuman clearly portrays the
carelessness towards their child which caused his death.
4) This case and the act of Mr Anshuman also falls under the transfer of malice. It is
inferred from section 301 of the IPC which states that t if a person does any act which he
knows or intends that is likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide and by causing
the death of any person, whose death he neither intends to nor knows by himself that by
his act will cause the death of that person.The culpable homicide here is of that sort
where he wanted to kill another person. He also had an intention and also the knowledge
that such an act is likely to cause death but killed another person. The person committing
culpable homicide had a piece of knowledge or intention to cause the death of someone
and in result kills someone else who he never intended to cause death or even knew that
an act will cause his death.
5) The essentials to fall under this sections are -
a) Causes death,
b) By doing an act with an intention or knowledge of causing the death of a
person or,
c) Causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
d) Causes the death of another person instead of the intended person.

All the essentials have been matched and fulfilled by Mr Anshuman to hold him
liable under section 301 of the IPC.

16
6) It is stated that if a person committing culpable homicide had an intention to kill a person
but killed another person. It may also be the case where he did not even have an intention
to kill or where he did not have the knowledge that his act would cause death. In these
cases he will be ruled as guilty and such vague excuses as the absence of intention will
not be entertained in any court.

In simpler terms, a person under Section 301 cannot be set free on

the grounds of not having any intention. Instead, the ‘Doctrine of Transferred Malice’
will apply and he will be held guilty.

7) Illustration –
a. ‘T’ intends to kill ‘F’ but kills ‘Y’, without intending to kill him. In this
illustration, the law will apply the ‘’Doctrine of Transferred Malice’’ and perceive
that in the first instance itself, he intended to kill that person. Thus, he will be held
guilty of killing ‘Y’.
b. ‘S’ entered the house of ‘D’ with an intent to commit robbery. ‘S’ demand money
from ‘D’. ‘D’ refused to give. Due to this, ‘S’ fired at him suddenly. ‘D’s’ wife
‘R’ came in between them to protect her husband and died due to being shot in the
head. Here, ‘S’ will be held guilty for transferred malice

8) In the case of Rajbir Singh v/s State of UP, The appellant, Rajbir Singh, lodged a FIR
alleging that a day before some brickbats were thrown in the compound of his brother's
house from the house of his neighbour Ramraj Rathore. On account of this incident,
exchange of hot words took place between his father Hoti Lal and accused Ramraj
Rathore, but the matter was pacified due to intervention of some persons of the locality.
At about 4.00 p.m. on 29.9.2003 Ramraj Rathore and his relations Geetendra Singh and
Prem Narain who were armed with firearms came near the shop of the complainant where
his father was standing and all of them exhorted that Hoti Lal should be killed. Ramraj
Rathore started firing towards Hoti Lal who after receiving the injuries fell down. Pooja
Kumari, a girl belonging to Scheduled Caste community, who had come to purchase
some articles from the shop, also sustained firearm injuries and fell down. Both the
injured were taken to the hospital but they died on the way. The court in relation with
Pooja Kumari held that, the accused should be held laible under section 301 of the IPC as

17
 the aforesaid provision clearly shows that if the killing took place in the course of doing
an act which a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, it ought to be treated
as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out. It embodies what the
English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of
motive. Under the section if A intends to kill B, but kills C whose death he neither
intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed
to him. If A aims his shot at B, but it misses B either because B moves out of the range of
the shot or because the shot misses the mark and hits some other person C, whether
within sight or out of sight, under S.301, A is deemed to have hit C with the intention to
kill him. What is to be noticed is that to invoke S.301 of the Indian Penal Code A shall
not have any intention to cause the death or the knowledge that he is likely to cause the
death of C.

The fact that there was no intention to cause injury to Pooja Balmiki and she was
accidently hit can make no difference as according to the version of the prosecution, the
accused intended to cause injuries by firearm to Hoti Lal and in attempting to carry out
the same, also caused injuries to her. The reasons given by the High Court for quashing
the charges are, therefore, wholly erroneous in law and cannot be sustained.

9) In the stated case of ShanabhaiBalubhai Nayak vs State Of Gujarat The incident in

question took place on November 7, 1995 in the house of the appellant. Jashiben, who is
daughter of the appellant, had come to the house of the appellant for delivery and was
accompanied by her husband, Rajubhai. The appellant was suspecting chastity of his
wife. At about 9.30 p.m., the appellant started abusing the deceased, as a result of which,
an altercation and scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased. On hearing
commotion, Arjunbhai, who was residing in a nearby house, came to the house of the
appellant and found that the appellant was quarreling with his mother. The abuses which
were hurled by the appellant were also heard by his son-in-law Rajubhai. Rajubhai, after
expressing his displeasure at the conduct and behaviour of the appellant, left the house of
the appellant to go to his house situated in village Malu, but was persuaded to return by
Ranjitbhai who had come back after attending his duties in a factory. It was found by
Ranjit also that the appellant was quarreling with his mother. Therefore, he persuaded his
father not to quarrel with his mother. Thereupon, a quarrel took place between the
appellant and his son Ranjit. In a flash, the appellant took out a "chharo", (a large and
sharp knife) blade of which was seven inches long and handle of which was four inches
long, and aimed the same at Ranjitbhai to cause an injury to him. Deceased Lilaben, who
was wife of the appellant and mother of Ranjit, apprehended that the appellant would kill
Ranjit. She, therefore, rushed and came in between. The appellant inflicted knife injury
on her chest which was upward in direction. Because of great force with which injury

18
 was inflicted on the deceased, the deceased sustained fracture of 4th and 5th ribs whereas
anterior wall of her heart was cut. Because of serious injuries sustained by her, the
deceased bled profusely and died on the spot within no time.

According to the learned Judge, the principle of transfer of malice as contemplated

by Section 301 IPC was applicable to the facts of the case and that the appellant was
liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC for commission of murder of his wife with
the help of provisions of Section 301 IPC. In view of above referred to conclusions, the
learned Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC
and imposed sentences referred to above by judgment dated September 24, 1996 giving
rise to instant appeal.

10) In Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat , 1995 Cri.L.J. 464, it was the case of the
prosecution that the accused had fired freely towards the fleeing complainant party and
the first shot had injured one person whereas second shot had resulted into death of ten
year old son of the complainant. It was noticed that firing was resorted to in a commercial
locality. The Sessions Court had acquitted the accused, but acquittal appeal was allowed
by the High Court and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section
301 and other provisions of IPC. It was submitted before the Supreme Court that the facts
and circumstances of the case and evidence led by the prosecution did not establish that
the appellant had any intention to commit murder of an innocent boy aged ten years with
whom there was no question of having any enmity or any occasion to take a revenge.
According to the learned counsel of the appellant, even from the evidence, it was possible
to hold that such death of the boy was absolutely unintentional and at best it could be
held that such firing was a rash and negligent action on the part of the appellant. It was
argued by the learned counsel of the appellant that act committed by the appellant was
not murder under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC as held by the High Court, but
was an offence under Section 304A IPC. Negative the said contention, the Supreme Court
has held that gun was not fired in the air just to frighten the complainant and his
companions, but the gun was fired by the appellant towards fleeing person even when by
the first shot one of such person was injured. According to the Supreme Court, such
firing was resorted to in a locality where there were number of shops and provision
of Section 301 IPC was clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC
was upheld by the Supreme Court.

11) Accused wanted to kill Mrs. Trisha but by accident at that time killed his child. This will
come under the doctrine of transfer of malice as he killed a person other than the person
he intended to. Similarly in our case the intention to harm the child or causing death may
not be there but the fact that death of the child was caused due to the act of accused is
more important.

19
12) Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty for
the offence causing death to other person than the one intended under section 301 of IPC.

20
ISSUE 3

Whether Motilal is liable for abetting the murder of the deceased.

1. It is humbly contended before the hon’ble court that the accused is guilty for
committing the offence of abetment under section 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. Section 107 statesabetment of a thing -A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
(First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any

conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing. Explanation 1.-A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant
from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not
Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation
2.Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
3. Girja Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Emperor the accused was convicted under
section section 352 for abetement to assault.`
4. In our case Motilal was sleeping in other room and woke up while Anshuman was
beating Trisha and due to the brutal act of Anshuman the child fell from her arms
and his head was hit with the sharp corner of the kitchen slab &The child started

21
 bleeding profusely.When trisha tried to escape from the kitchen towards the main
gate. Motilal reached the main gate before her and bolted the gate with a lock
which lead to trisha being trapped at that time.When Anshuman was looking for
an instrument to kill his wife he took a knife from the kitchen and stabbed Trisha
in the chest with it. Here Motilal aided Anshuman in killing Trisha, as per 3rd
clause of section 107 and explanation 1 of section 108 of IPC.
5. Section 108. Abettor.-
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the
commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person
capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as
that of the abettor. Explanation 1- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act
may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do
that act. Explanation 2- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary
that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute
the offence should be caused.
6. As per Section 114 Abettor present when offence is committed. –
Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor,
is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in
consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed
such act or offence.
As in the ambit of section 114 Motilal was present when the offence was
committed and should be liable as he abetted Mr. Anshuman in murdering Mrs.
Trisha.
7. In case of Prabha Alias SwayamprabhaAnd ... vs State Of Kerala9 -
The accused and the person abetted were held liable for the same charges as the
the person aiding the accused was present at time when the offence happened .
Similarly in case of Khem Karan And Ors. vs State Of U.P.1011
The person abetting the crime was charged under section 114 and the conviction
given by the previous court was upheld.
9

10
1994 CRILJ 569
11

22
 8. In case of Awadh Mahto& Awadhesh Prasad ... vs The State Of Bihar 12 the
accused was held liable under section 114 read with section 302. The case was of
the the accused held the victim from moving and the other person shot a bullet to
the victim and victim died due to the gun shot.
It was held even though the person who was holding the victim did not kill him
directly but abetted in the murder, therefore he was held liable for murder under
section 302 read with section 114.
Similarly Motilal did not directly killed the victim but locked her means of
escaping, thus Motilal abetted in murder of Ms. Trisha.

9. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is
guilty for the offence of abetting the offence under section 302 read with section
114 of Indian Penal Code 1860, which is clearly established from the facts of the
case& beyond a reasonable doubt.

12
2007 CriLJ 342

23
 PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, humbly
requests the hon’ble court to ;

1. Convict Accused for the offence of committing murder and homicide under Sections
302,304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Convict Motilal for the offence of abetting the murder of the deceased.

AND/OR
Pass any order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date- 06.06.2021

Signature of the counsel

KARANDEEP SAUND

24
i