1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………Page - 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………..Page - 4

3. JURISDICTION………………………………………………….…Page - 5

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………….....Page - 6

5. ISSUES RAISED……..………………………………………….…Page - 7

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………..…….....Page - 8

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………......Page - 9

7.1 Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?…Page - 9

7.2 Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been proved in the
current case?…………………………………………………….…....Page - 14

7.3 Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence ?……………………………………..…....Page - 17

7.4 Whether the Appellant fulfills the essential elements to be convicted under the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307
Indian Penal Code?…………………………………….……………Page - 20

8. PRAYER……………………………………………………..…… Page - 23

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

1. SC Supreme Court

2. HC High Court

3. & And

4. IPC Indian Penal Code

6. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

7. Hon’ble Honourable

8. Art. Article

9. i.e That is

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

STATUTES AND RULES:

● Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
● Indian Penal Code, 1860
● Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS AND DIGESTS:

● Justice M.R. Mallick, Criminal manual
● Justice M.R. Mallick’s Criminal Minor Acts
● Principles of the Law of Evidence, Avtar Singh
● Commentary on IPC by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal
● Indian Evidence Act by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal

DICTIONARY, ONLINE DATABASE & WEBSITES:

● SCC Online, https://www.scconline.com
● B.A.Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,8th ed.(2004)
● Manupatra Online Resources , https://www.manupatrafast.in
● Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org

TABLE OF CASES:

1) Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr, 2007

2) Anna & Ors V. Hyderabad state
3) Ramesh durgappa hirekerur vs. State of Maharashtra
4) State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai Nathalal Patel (2017)
5) K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
6) RAMNARESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
7) Hariprasada Rao v. State

4
8) Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad
9) S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
10) State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram
11) Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State Of M.P
12) Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh
13) Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The council on behalf of the appellant humbly submits to the Hon’ble High Court of
Maharashtra that it has the jurisdiction to try this case under Section 374(2) of CrPC.

“374. Appeals from convictions:

(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.”

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Aria Mehra, a dedicated architect, and Roshan Sachdeva, a marketing professional, entered
matrimony in 2017. Aria's successful career and Roshan's unwavering support initially
defined their harmonious relationship. Aria's commitment to a substantial loan for her
father-in-law's eco-tourism resort project strengthened her bond with him, despite Roshan's
initial reservations.

Their marital bliss took a downturn when Roshan lost his job during the COVID lockdown.
Struggling with alcohol and anger issues, he became increasingly distant. Aria's attempts to
navigate this tumultuous phase were aided by her colleague Pooja Chopra, who played a
significant role in providing emotional and financial support.

The marriage faced a turning point when Roshan's suspicions of Aria's infidelity arose,
leading to a violent confrontation. Aria, feeling hurt and humiliated, left their home and
sought refuge with Pooja. Despite Roshan's remorse and attempts at reconciliation, Aria filed
for divorce, citing cruelty as grounds for separation.

The situation escalated when, during the divorce proceedings, Roshan made a distressing call,
threatening self-harm if Aria didn't return. Aria's response was stern, and on the same night,
she visited Roshan's home with Pooja. However, the following day, Roshan was found dead
in his apartment, leading to Aria's arrest on charges of murder.

The prosecution alleges that Aria's guilt is supported by circumstantial evidence, forensic
findings, and the psychological dynamics of their relationship. The case is complex,
involving intricate details of their personal lives, emotional struggles, and the tragic
culmination of events leading to Roshan's demise.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

● Issue 1: Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

● Issue 2: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been proved
in the current case?

● Issue 3: Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence?

● Issue 4: Whether the Appellant fulfils the essential elements to be convicted

under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S.
307 Indian Penal Code?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

Yes, the appeal filed by Mrs.Aria is maintainable before the Hon’ble High court on the basis
of contention against her conviction in the following appeal .The accused/appellant in the
case must be levelled with the reasonable benefit of doubt ,since the prosecution has filed to
prove beyond all reasonable doubts the guilt of the accused/appellant.

Issue 2: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been proved in the
current case?

No, the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent are not proved ,there are no reasonable
grounds that are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant.The mere presence of
the accused /appellant in place of commission of the crime in due is not a reasonable ground
to convict.The accused /appellant went to the victim’s residence in good faith inordinate of
him threatening to end his life if she didn’t get back with him.

Issue 3:Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial
evidence?
Yes, the appellant had been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.The
combination of the appellant’s conviction is based on a combination of circumstantial
evidence (e.g., security guard’s testimony, CCTV footage) The key fact in issue is whether
Aria is responsible for Roshan’s death, and circumstantial evidence used to establish the
connection between Aria and the alleged crime.

Issue 4: Whether the Appellant fulfils the essential elements to be convicted under the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal
Code?
No, the Appellant does not fulfil the essential elements to be convicted under the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code.It's
essential to address each charge meticulously.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether the Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?

Yes,the appeal filed by Mrs.Aria is maintainable before the Hon’ble High court on the basis
of contention against her conviction in the following appeal .The accused/appellant in the
case must be levelled with the reasonable benefit of doubt ,since the prosecution has filed to
prove beyond all reasonable doubts the guilt of the accused/appellant.

The scenario dealt with limited circumstantial evidences ,which were not corroborative on
grounds to prove the involvement of the accused/appellant .In order to prove the guilt of the
accused there must be an association of nexus of actions firmly established.The appeal filed
on the grounds of claim under section 374(2) is valid provided the punishment prescribed by
the Trial court is punishment of 10 years imprisonment with a penalty of 1 lakh rupees.
Hence the appeal is valid.

Section.374(2) provides that 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 2 has been passed against him or against any other
person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr, 20071

An offender who has been convicted has the unalienable right to exercise his or her appeal
under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code. In light of Article 21‘s broad definition, the
ability to appeal a conviction that has an impact on one’s freedom is likewise a basic right.
Therefore, the right of appeal cannot be limited in any way or subjected to any conditions.
The right to appeal is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Section 374 of
the Criminal Procedure Code.

1
10 April, 2007[Appeal (crl.) 521 of 2007]

10
The corroboration of the evidences that are submitted before the court subjected to
evaluation :

1.1(a) The Plea of Alibi

The presence of the accused/victim is substantiated on the basis of their presence over the
crime scene along with the victim.The provided circumstance is that the accused/appellant
along with Mrs.Pooja who offered her to drive to the victim’s house started at 11.30pm and
the estimated time for travel from their place to victim’s house is 30 minutes to one hour the
estimated arrival is between 11.55 to 12.30 meanwhile the accused/appellant left her house
and reached to car where Mrs.Pooja had been waiting for her after 70 minutes ,she finds her
to be missing and in a while Mrs.Pooja comes out running from the society. The time of death
of the accused is prescribed to be around 2:30AM where there are no traces of the accused
/appellant to be present there at that time ,since the murder weapon used is knife and there
was grievous hurt prescribed death is confirmed in immediate,there was about an hour time
gap between their presence and death of the victim which substantiates their plea for Alibi.

Section .11(1) of the Indian Evidence Act ,1872

When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. Facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant— 1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence
of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

Essentials:

● There should be a crime.

● The person taking the plea of alibi should be accused of the said crime.
● The accused must not be present at the crime scene.
● The accused has to prove the plea with no reasonable doubt.

The person who has been accused and who uses a plea of alibi as his defence must not be
present at the crime scene at the time when the crime took place.

Anna & Ors V. Hyderabad state2

2
1956 CRI LJ 887, AIR 1956 HYDERABAD 99, ILR (1956) HYD 205

11
In the case of Anna & Ors v. Hyderabad State (1955), the Court held that it must be
understood that mere failure on the part of the accused to establish the plea of alibi will not
and cannot give rise to the conclusion that the accused was at the place where the crime is
said to have been committed.

1.1(B) The circumstantial evidences that were recovered from the crime scene

The provided evidences of the wine glasses being three in numbers do not comprehend to the
fact that there was only the victim and the accused at that place ,if she was there with him at
that time then there wouldn’t have been a third person , if someone else was present indicates
that she must be knowing who it was which she evidently would not deny as she wanted to
prove her innocence.The knife had imprints of the victim himself followed by vague imprints
which do not indicate towards the accused/appellant ,there a no corroborative evidences to
indicate that the accused /appellant met the victim on her visit.

In the landmark case of Hanumant V state of MP3

● The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be formed must be

completely established, and they must be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
● There must be a chain of evidence so thorough that it leaves no reasonable room for a
finding consistent with the accused's innocence and must demonstrate that the act
must have been committed by the accused in all human probability.

The chain of events that is associated in the crime is not complete and conclusive there are no
findings consistent with that accused is not innocent beyond all reasonable doubts.

In this case there can only be a plausible motive that since they both had devastating marital
life ,in order to end the obligation such actions were taken ,but this mere assumption that is
put forth by the prosecution cannot be a valid ground followed by the absence of
corroborative evidences to support the commission of the crime.

Ramesh durgappa hirekerur vs. State of Maharashtra4 The court said that to convict an
accused on circumstantial evidence alone, the prosecution needs to establish the chain of
circumstances that points at the accused only and is inconsistent with their innocence.

3
AIR 1952 SC 343, 1953 CR LJ 129
4
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.828 OF OF 2015 ,Decided on 2017

12
 ● It is also important on the part of the prosecution to establish the chain of
circumstances from which the guilt of the accused can be drawn. Then these
circumstances need to be taken into consideration.
● The prosecution needs to establish that the accused and no other person has
committed the offence within all human probability.
● It was also contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence when the
motive assumes significance.
● In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the above-stated points. Hence, the
court quashed the order of the trial court.

State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai Nathalal Patel (2017) 5

This case dealt with the question of how to evaluate circumstantial evidence when the
prosecution relies on the motive of the accused to establish guilt. The Supreme Court held
that motive alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction, but it can be considered as a piece
of evidence along with other circumstantial evidence.

There is no relevancy of evidences in prima facie to prove that the accused /appellant
prepared ,intended or had motive towards the commission of the crime,under the preview of
section.8 of the Indian evidence Act 1872, all she wanted is to check upon her husband who
was not doing good since she left and had outspoken about taking his life if she didn’t get
back with him.The contention of a distressed mental state and unhealthy relationship cannot
provide that she had an intent to kill the victim.

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) 6

The Supreme Court of India highlighted the importance of a trial court's findings. The court
emphasised that the trial court, having the advantage of observing witnesses and evaluating
evidence firsthand, holds a unique position to determine the credibility and reliability of the
evidence presented.

1.1(c) The sole reliance on an eye witness as a testimony to convict

5
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10336 of 2019
6
1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR SUPL

13
The trial court has erred in its decision relying solely upon the testimony given by the
security guard in this scenario.The security guard after seeing the accused/appellant enter the
society premises had left and did neither see her entering the residence of the victim nor
leaving the society,all that he saw was her presence in the premises.The eyewitness are
subjective to receptivity hence there needs to be corroborative evidences to substantiate the
perspective of the prosecution until then the accused/appellant has no role in commission of
the crime. The fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty" mandates that the
prosecution carries the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
trial court did not provide the sufficient evidentiary grounds nor justify the contentions of
charges he was accused for. The findings of the court below are therefore arbitrary and liable
to be intervened by this Hon’ble Court.

RAMNARESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH7 Testimony of the sole

eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the
statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that...have been committed
by a single person The referred case of Namodeo V .state of Maharashtra emphasises that
prosecution is based on solitary testimony of eyewitness Sopan, son of the deceased. He is
thus an “interested” witness. In absence of any corroboration, it would not be safe to place
implicitly...) “Indeed, conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and
there is rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes
hence be subjected to proper reliable examinations .The eyewitness are susceptible and can
be manipulative there needs to be corroborative evidences alongside to substantiate the views
of the victim.Hence the eyewitness cannot be a sole reliance to base conviction.Therefore the
non substantial nature of the evidence and the rights of the accused /appellant in ordinate to
seek redressal from the court on the basis of contention against the acquittal is admissible in
the Hon’ble Bombay High court.

7
Criminal Appeal No. 166-67 of 2010

14
Issue 2: Whether the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has been proved in the
current case?

No,the Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent are not proved ,there are no reasonable
grounds that are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant.The mere presence of
the accused /appellant in place of commission of the crime in due is not a reasonable ground
to convict.The accused /appellant went to the victim’s residence in good faith inordinate of
him threatening to end his life if she didn’t get back with him.The intention,motive ,planing
and subsequent consequence are not established in due.

1.1 Absence of intention to commit the offence and failure to prove the offence

The accused/appellant went to the residence of the victim in order of a conversation which
they had virtually stating: In a heated argument, the victim said to the “appellant /accused, if
you do not come back, I can't bear it anymore. I might just end myself tonight.”This was a
threatening factor condoled by this she had to visit him.But it is not very certain that the
accused /appellant met the victim that night ,even though she went ,she returned in a very
short span of time.Therefore it is to be viewed upon that the actions perceived at that night
was to resolve the prolonging conflict and in order to save him from committing any harm
against himself which would inflict blame on her in case of his death.Already it is an
established fact that if anything happens to the victim in causing death it would be on the
burden of proof for the accused /appellant ,hence there are least chances for her to resort to
such actions.

Burden of proof

Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states as below,

Section 101.Burden of Proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal
right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those
facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the
burden of proof lies on that person.

It is well established that the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond all reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused

15
Bhikari v. State of U.P., the Court quoted with approval the following passage from
Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat,:The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving
that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.

1.2 The men’s rea in order of commission of murder are absent

Accused /appellant’s murder charges hinge on proving a deliberate intent to cause Roshan’s
death. Notably, she sought a divorce based on separation, indicating a desire to move on. It’s
improbable for someone ready to start anew to jeopardise their life by committing murder.
Aria’s actions, like living separately, staying with Pooja, and filing for divorce, demonstrate
her efforts to distance herself from Roshan. Ignoring calls and texts further underscores her
wish to sever ties. In contrast to explicit intent, like premeditation, her actions may be
attributed to the tumultuous circumstances of their marriage, rather than a calculated murder
plan.

The element of men’s rea involves:

Intention / knowledge, recklessness, negligence, malice aforethought, criminal

negligence—Neither of the elements were established. The accusation of the malice
aforethought of her inflicting harm in order to end the relationship with him is irrelevant as he
already had moved lawfully to acquire a legal termination of the relationship through modes
of divorce.

Inconsistent behaviour of the accused /appellant:

-The accused /appellant had entered into the premises of the society and was witnessed by
the security guard but there are no signs of her leaving ,it is also seen that there are no
evidences or traces of her presence in the crime scene

-She had acted in good faith in order to stop him from inflicting harm to himself,and wanted
to visit him to check upon his actions and mental state.

-She had started living apart and showed no involvement or repulsion towards the victim’s
interests ,all that she intended was to live aloof and fresh.

16
-The preclusion of the evidences are not coordinating to form a nexus without ‘novus actus
interveniens’.The evidences are not indicating and do not form a part to specify the
evidentiary involvement of the accused/victim

Hariprasada Rao v. State 8 The Supreme Court ruled that unless a statute either clearly or
by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent element of crime, a person
should not be found guilty of an offence, unless he had a guilty mind at the time of
commission of the offence.

1.3 Actions done by the accused /appellant in the welfare of the victim,evidentiary
characters of the accused in order of innocence.

Aria's actions, while contributing to stress, may not be seen as intentional abetment. Her
efforts to seek counselling and support for Roshan's issues can serve as evidence against
intentional abetment, indicating genuine concern for his well-being. Despite the strain in their
marriage, Aria consistently tried to save it by encouraging counselling and being a supportive
presence. Even after Roshan lost his job, she refrained from pursuing divorce, only filing
after he slapped her due to suspicions of infidelity, revealing her commitment to the marriage.
Aria's attempts to maintain the relationship and make Roshan happy illustrate her dedication,
placing responsibility on him if he chose not to change despite her efforts.

Section.53 of the Indian Evidence Act ,1872 In case of criminal proceeding previous
good character of the accused must be considered relevant

Section 53. The Indian Evidence Act provides that in criminal cases, the good character of
the accused person is relevant. The reason behind this is the basic human psychology that a
person of good character will not generally resort to a criminal act. If goodness is proved it
helps in a presumption of non-commission of the offence by that individual.

In the case of Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad9, . The Supreme Court held that
in criminal proceedings, the character of the accused can help in determining the innocence
or guilt of the accused. It can help in either making him suspicious or free from all the
suspicions. Accused is allowed to prove general good character in the question of
punishment.

8
1951) SCR 322
9
1954 AIR 51, 1954 SCR 475, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT

17
Issue 3:Whether the Appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial
evidence?

Yes,the appellant had been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.The
combination of the appellant’s conviction is based on a combination of circumstantial
evidence (e.g., security guard’s testimony, CCTV footage) The key fact in issue is whether
Aria is responsible for Roshan’s death, and circumstantial evidence used to establish the
connection between Aria and the alleged crime. The appellant's conviction is primarily based
on circumstantial evidence, particularly the testimony of the security guard. There is a need
for caution in relying solely on circumstantial evidence, thus urging the court to consider
alternative explanations for Roshan's death.

Applying the principles outlined in Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir10
to the case at hand:

1.Circumstances from which guilt is established are required to be fully proved and
must be impenetrable.

In this case inconsistencies in the testimony of the security guard, the primary circumstantial
evidence. Point out any gaps or uncertainties in the timeline leading to Roshan's death,
indicating that the circumstances are not fully proved and remain penetrable.

2. Circumstances should be conclusive in nature and tendency:

The ambiguity or alternative interpretations of the CCTV footage and forensic evidence. If
there are plausible alternative explanations for the broken glass, fingerprints, or the knife,
argue that the circumstances lack conclusiveness and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

3. Circumstances should, to a moral certainty, ensure that there is no scope for any
other hypothesis to be true:

10
AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3164

18
Present alternative hypotheses such as the possibility of an intruder or another person with a
motive to harm Roshan. Demonstrate that these alternatives, while speculative, introduce
reasonable doubt and indicate that the circumstances do not ensure moral certainty

4. All other hypotheses should be excluded except that one that proves the guilt of the
accused:

If there are gaps in the investigation or unanswered questions regarding the appellant's
presence at the crime scene, argue that the prosecution has not met the standard of excluding
all other hypotheses.

It is also to be noted that the appellant was dealing with a spouse's struggles with alcohol,
anger management, and personal challenges. Highlight how these factors might have
contributed to an environment of stress and turmoil, raising questions about the appellant's
culpability in a premeditated crime.It is evident from the facts that all she wanted to do was
leave him which is why she also filed for divorce on the grounds of separation,a person who
is ready to leave her spouse and has taken the necessary steps,why would she premeditate his
death? In Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh11 highlights the significance of mental health
conditions as a mitigating factor in criminal cases.The appellant was dealing with a spouse
battling alcohol and anger issues, contributing to a stressful environment. This aspect should
be considered as a mitigating factor, suggesting a lack of premeditation or malicious intent on
the appellant’s part.

Their deteriorating marital relationship, including Roshan's history of alcohol abuse, anger
management problems, and the appellant's attempts to seek counseling.There is a possibility
of other individuals having motives or opportunities to harm Roshan. Given the complexities
of the relationships involved, consider presenting evidence that raises doubt about the
appellant being the only person with the means and motive to commit the crime.Roshan was
dealing with severe anger issues that stemmed out of his loss of job,Despite everything,
Roshan's struggles with alcohol and anger persisted.With a personality like that it is unlikely
that he hasn’t ticked anyone else off. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State Of M.P12
It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the

11
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 942
12
AIR 1952 SC 343, 1953 CR LJ 129, [1952]1SCR1091

19
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance
be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.

The forensic evidence, particularly the fingerprints on the knife. If there is a vague print on
the handle and the primary print matches Roshan, argue that this suggests a more complex
scenario than a straightforward murder by the appellant.Emphasis on the term “vague”,there
hasn’t been any mention about the fingerprints belonging to Aria,hence this evidence should
be in admissible in court against aria,and without an established murder weapon in her
reference the whole question of her committing the crime is out of the window.

In facts it is stated that Aria had gone to Roshan’s place at 11:30 PM and had left 70 minutes
after his death. According to the forensic report Roshan’s death was to be noted at 2:30 AM.
Hence at the time of the time she wasn’t even present at the crime scene and she had gone
back to her friends place which is around 25 km away from this place, with her, not even
being present at the scene of the crime during the commission of the crime. How can we state
that she was the one who committed the crime?

20
Issue 4: Whether the Appellant fulfils the essential elements to be convicted under the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal
Code?

No,the Appellant does not fulfil the essential elements to be convicted under the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian Penal Code.It's
essential to address each charge meticulously.

Section 300 and Section 302 IPC:

Absence of Intent to Commit Murder:

The cornerstone of murder charges is the intent to cause death. In Aria's case, it is to be
asserted that there is insufficient evidence to prove a deliberate intent to kill Roshan. It is to
be noted that Aria wanted to file for divorce against Roshan on the ground of separation.
Why would a person who is about to move on with their life after a divorce want to go and
kill the spouse and fall into the trap of murder. It is unlikely hence she has no proper intent
for killing Roshan. All of her actions show that she did her best to stay away from Roshan .
She did not live with him anymore,She stayed with Pooja,She filed for divorce. She did not
respond to his calls or texts,She wanted no involvement in roshan‘s life anymore. Why would
a person who wants to move on with her life leaving all these bad memories in the past want
to go and ruin her life by killing him? Reference can be made to the case of R v.
Cunningham, where the court emphasised that mens rea, or guilty mind, is essential for a
murder conviction.In the absence of explicit expressions of intent, such as premeditation or
planning, Aria's actions might be attributed to the volatile circumstances surrounding their
marital discord, rather than a calculated intention to murder.

Lack of Causation:

To successfully prosecute under Sections 300 and 302, the prosecution must establish a direct
causal link between Aria's actions and Roshan's death.Citing the case of R. v. White, [1998]
2 S.C.R. 72, where the accused put poison in his mother's drink, but she died of a heart attack
before consuming it, one can argue that a mere association between actions and outcome does
not necessarily imply guilt. With reference to the above case, the mere fact that Aria was the
last person to leave the apartment is not automatically linked to his death and it is also to be

21
noted that the time she had left. His apartment was at 11:30 PM and his death was said to
happen at 2:30 AM. She wasn’t even in the vicinity during the commission of the crime as
the place where she was staying was Pooja‘s house 25 km away from there even if she was
not at Pooja‘s house. She was not seen going back into Roshan‘s apartment anymore and the
way that Roshan died suggested that it was a lot of physical altercation. If she wasn’t even
there if it was a matter of poisoning or something like that, it could be stated that she may
have had an involvement, but in case of physical alteration, how can we assume that she was
one who killed him if she wasn’t even present to the crime scene at the time of the crime? If
Aria's actions were not directly responsible for Roshan's death, such as if he succumbed to
health issues exacerbated by stress, the causation element becomes questionable.

Reasonable Doubt and Benefit of the Doubt:

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the prosecution. By
highlighting any gaps, inconsistencies, or ambiguities in the prosecution's case, we can argue
that reasonable doubt exists. Reference can be made to the case of State Of Rajasthan vs
Kashi Ram13 where the court emphasised that in criminal cases, any doubts should be
resolved in favour of the accused. If the prosecution's evidence does not conclusively
establish intent or causation, the defence can capitalise on these uncertainties, urging the
court to apply the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.'In this case it is stated that Aria is
the one who killed Roshan because she had some kind of grudge against him because she
hated him and many other things, but judging from the time when she had arrived the scene
when she left the scene another time of his murder, we can derive the following Aria had got
to his apartment in order to talk things out with him after he reached out to her on the fifth
wedding anniversary. However, it is seen at the time of the crime. It was seen that he had a
wine glass along with them, which could indicate that he was drinking at the time and he has
a history of alcoholism and aggression and anger issues. He could’ve gotten into an
altercation with her after which could explain the small injury on her head that could explain
that after which he could have in his own heart and anger hurt himself.

Section 306 IPC: Abetment of Suicide:

Lack of Intentional Abetment

13
7 November, AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 144,

22
To secure a conviction under Section 306, the prosecution must prove that Aria intentionally
abetted Roshan's suicide. Referring to the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan14,
where the court highlighted the need for active instigation, we can argue that Aria's actions,
even if contributing to stress, may not amount to intentional abetment.Aria's attempts to seek
counselling and support for Roshan's issues can be presented as evidence against intentional
abetment, suggesting a genuine concern for his well-being. Despite all the bridges in their
marriage, Aria only ever tried her best to save her marriage not just by sending her husband
for counselling but also being his rock. Even after he lost his job, she did not claim for
divorce ,the only reason why she filed for divorce after he had slapped her was because of
suspecting infidelity without trusting his wife. She did her best to maintain the marriage. She
did her best to keep him happy,and it was not her fault despite her trying everything else if he
did not want to change.

Section 307 IPC: Attempt to Murder:

Lack of Direct Act with Intent

To establish an attempt to murder under Section 307, the prosecution must prove a direct act
with the intent to cause death. The defence can argue that any actions taken by Aria were not
directly aimed at causing Roshan's death and that there was no concrete evidence of such
intent. If Aria's actions were more indicative of self-defence or a response to a perceived
threat rather than a premeditated attempt on Roshan's life, it weakens the attempt to murder
charge.Regarding Aria's culpability under Sections 300, 302, 306, and 307 of the IPC. By
emphasising the absence of clear intent, causation, and intentional abetment, coupled with
leveraging principles of reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt, the defence aims to
secure Aria's acquittal.

The cases referenced, such as R v. Cunningham, R v. White, State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram,
and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, provides legal precedents and principles that
bolster the defence's arguments. It is imperative to present Aria's actions within the context of
a strained marital relationship, ensuring that the court carefully scrutinises the evidence and
applies the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

14
2010 AIR SCW 4938, (2010) 95 ALLINDCAS 96 (SC)

23
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced,
it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court, that it may be graciously pleased to
declare the followings:

● The Petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court

● The Appellant’s mens rea and criminal intent has not been proved in the current case

● The Appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence

● The Appellant does not fulfil the essential elements to be convicted under the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code - S. 300, S. 302, S. 306 & S. 307 Indian
Penal Code

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience. For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty
Bound Forever Pray.

All of which is Humbly Prayed

(Counsel on behalf of the Appellant)

24
25