IPC Memorial V1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
APPEALATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __OF1876
REG………… …………………………………….… APPELLANT

Vs.
GOVINDA…………………………………………RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED . . . . PASSED BY
THE SESSIONS JUDGE R.F. MACTIER OF SATAR,
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 302 IPC AND SENTENCING HIM WITH DEATH
Page |1
SYNOPSIS
1. In the pertaining case, the Appellant who was a boy of
18 years was married to a girl of 15. The boy appeared
to have been habitually ill- treating the girl. On the
fateful day the Appellant knocked his wife down, has
kicked his wife and has struck her several times with his
fist on the back, put one knee on her chest, and struck
her two or three violent blows on the face with closed
fist, this took effect on the girl's left eye, producing
contusion and discoloration. The skull was not
fractured, but caused an extravasation of blood on the
brain, and the girl died in consequence either on the
spot, or very shortly afterwards.
2. On this state of facts, the Appellant was held guilty of
the offence of murder by the Sessions Judge. and he has
been sentenced to death.
3. The case came up before a Bench of two Judges of the
Bombay High Court for confirmation of the death
sentence.
4. As there was a difference of opinion between the Judges
constituting the Bench as to whether the facts
constituted an offence of murder or an offence of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the case
was for opinion to a third Judge
Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

Page |2
GROUNDS
i. That the Appellant who was a boy of 18 years was
married to a girl of 15 years had knocked his wife down,
kicked his wife and struck her several times with his fist
on the back, put one knee on her chest, and struck her two
or three violent blows on the face with closed fist. Thus on
such facts the Learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion
that the appellant had Committed a crime punishable
under section 302 of IPC of murder.
ii. On this the counsel for the prosecutor contended that

whether Balai, the Appellant’s wife, died from violence or
not? And the same was answered by the Learned Sessions
Judge in the affirmative, saying that: - “the medical
evidence is clear on this point.”
The learned Sessions Judge was of view that the
Appellant’s Wife died due to effusion of blood on the
brain, arising from a blow just above and towards the inner
corner of the left eye. And she also had several marks of
beatings on several places of her back. This made clear
that the beating was severe. Thus made clear that the death
arose in this case was due to the beating caused by the
Appellant.
iii. Thereafter, the counsel for the prosecutor contented that

whether this violence was inflicted by the Appellant. This
was also answered in affirmative by the Learned Sessions
Judge.
iv. Thereafter another contention was presented by the

Counsel for prosecutor that whether such acts of the
appellant constitute murder or minor offence of culpable
homicide. In which the Learned Sessions Judge was of the

Page |3
opinion that it was a more serious offence. As there was

no grave and sudden provocation but his beatings
concluded in the death and thereby sentenced appellant to
death.
v. Now that the counsel for the appellants has approached

this court, aggrieved by decision of the aforesaid court.
vi. That the bodily injury caused by the Appellant was not
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. And
there was no apparent motive on the part of the Appellant
to cause the death of her wife. And people often survive
such blows, and the Appellant have only intended to cause
Hurt.
vii. That the Learned Sessions Judge has decided that the
appellants’ wife, died from the violence, here it is
presumed that the medical evidence clearly show that she
died from effusion of blood on the brain, arising from a
blow just above, and towards the inner corner of the left
eye, and at this place, rather towards the corner of the eye,
there is said to have been the external mark of a blow.
From this it can be said that the Appellant was not having
any intention to cause death of his wife rather just to cause
Simple hurt. As mere beating on the back and blows on
the face clearly show no intention to cause death.
viii. That the Learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the
violence was caused by the appellant, here it is true that
the Appellant had used violence against his wife. But
again the violence caused by the Appellant was not with
the intention to cause death or to cause any such bodily
injury which is likely to cause death, nor he was having

Page |4
knowledge of the fact that this act is likely to cause death.

Therefor it can be said that there was no intention or
knowledge on the part of the appellant to cause death.
Thus he should not be held for murder.
ix. That for purpose of comparison, the provisions of Sections

299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code may be stated thus:
a. According to section 299, A person commits

culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is
caused is done
i. With the intention of causing death;
ii. With the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death:
iii. With the knowledge that the act is likely to
cause death.
b. Acceding to section 300, Subject to certain
exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done
i. With the intention of causing death;
ii. With the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is
caused;
iii. With the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person, and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death;
iv. With the knowledge that the act is so
imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death, or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.
I have underlined the words to mark the difference
between the two offences. It shows

Page |5
a. that where there is an intention kill, the offence is

always murder;
b. The offence is murder, if the offender knows that the
particular person injured is likely, either from
peculiarity of constitution, or immature age, or other
special circumstance, be killed by an injury which
would not ordinarily cause death;
c. That the offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause
death;
d. That its murder, if such injury is sufficient in
ordinary course if nature to cause death.
x. From the above comparison between section 299 and

section 300 the appellant contents as follows: -
That the offence committed by the Appellant was not
murder but culpable homicide. As there is hardly any
evidence to prove that there was “intention” and
“knowledge” to the Appellant which are requisite under
section 300, Indian Penal Code. To charge Appellant with
murder.
xi. That according to section 300 of Indian Penal code a
person is said to commit murder if the offender knows that
the particular person injured is likely, either from
peculiarity of constitution, or immature age, or other
special circumstance, be killed by an injury which would
not ordinarily cause death. Here in this case the appellant
did not knew that his wife will be killed due to such
beating on his part under such circumstances. thus he
should not be held for the murder.
xii. That the acts done by the Appellant of causing the injury
that was the main cause of death was an injury which is
likely to cause death of a person i.e. ordinarily it would
not cause death. But a violent blow in eye from a man’s

Page |6
fist, while the person struck is lying with is head on the

ground, is certainly likely to cause death. Thus the
appellant should not be held for murder but for minor
offence.
PRAYER
In Light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities
cited, counsel for the appellant humbly pray before this Hon’ble court
to:-
TO PASS
 Admit appeal call for the record, release your appellate pending
disposal of the appeal on bail and after hearing the case.
 That the appellant should not be convicted for murder.
 That there was neither intention nor knowledge to the appellant
of the causing the death.
 That the appellant cannot be held liable for murder as his
intentions was to cause hurt and not death.
TO HOLD
 The decision of the lower court.
TO SET ASIDE
 The order of the conviction and sentence.
MISCELLANEOUS
And pass any other order as the court may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience. For this act of kindness, the
Appellant, as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Page |7
Sd/-
Counsel for Appellant
VERIFICATION
I, ______, do hereby verify that the contents of this application are
correct and true to the best of my knowledge and personal belief and
no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein
(Signature)
Notes:
1. No such appeal has been filed prior to it before Hon’ble High
Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. PF, Notices and extra copies shall be filed within stipulated
time.
3. And the pie-papers were not readily available; hence this appeal
has been on stout papers.

IPC Memorial V1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPC Memorial V1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPC Memorial V1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __OF1876

REG………… …………………………………….… APPELLANT

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

ii. On this the counsel for the prosecutor contended that

iii. Thereafter, the counsel for the prosecutor contented that

iv. Thereafter another contention was presented by the

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

opinion that it was a more serious offence. As there was

v. Now that the counsel for the appellants has approached

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

knowledge of the fact that this act is likely to cause death.

ix. That for purpose of comparison, the provisions of Sections

a. According to section 299, A person commits

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

a. that where there is an intention kill, the offence is

x. From the above comparison between section 299 and

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

fist, while the person struck is lying with is head on the

 The order of the conviction and sentence.

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

Criminal appeal on behalf of Appellant

You might also like