









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
memorial based on a criminal problem under section 300 of crpc
Typology: Cheat Sheet
1 / 17
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Memorial Submitted By Counsel on behalf of The Appellants
Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under sec 302 read with section 34 of the IPC1860? ………………………………………………………………………………………........ Whether the nature of the injuries and the nature of the weapon were such as to cause death of aperson? ......................................................................................................................... Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation? ............ Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with life imprisonment inconnection with the act committed by them? ................................................................. PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 16
The Appellants humbly approach the Hon’ble High Court under Section 374(2) of the Criminial Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows: 374 – Appeals from Conviction_ Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extra ordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. Any person convicted on a trial held any a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court. Save as otherwise provided in sub section (2), any person- Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrateof the first class or of the second class, or sentenced under section 325, or In respect of whom an order has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal tothe Court of Session. The Appellants humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.
after the death of Randhir; the charges were altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 of IndianPenal Code, 1860. The sessions Court convicted the three Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 & sentenced them to life imprisonment for having committed the murder of Randhir. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. ISSUES RAISED A. Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of theIPC, B. Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to cause deathof a person. C. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation D. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with life imprisonment in connection with the act committed by them?
Whether the Appellants can be prosecuted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, . It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble session court has implicitly errored in assessing the matter. The court has held the Appellants guilty of murder under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Section 302 read with section 34, IPC envisages commission of murder by two or more people in furtherance of a common intention but there is no evidence to show sheer presence of common intention, prior meeting of mind and pre arranged plan. So the appellant cannot be prosecuted under section 300 read with section 34 of IPC. Whether the nature of injuries and the nature of the weapon, was such as to cause deathof a person. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the nature of the injury and the nature of the weapon were not dangerous enough to cause death of the person as the blows with wooden walking stick were not imminently dangerous within the meaning definition of dangerous weapons under section 324 of IPC. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation. It is most humbly contended before this Honb’le court that the act of the deceased amount to grave and sudden provocation as the appellant has refrained his daughter from meeting the deceased and the unwillingness of the deceased to relinquish love affair with his daughter caused serious and grave provocation which foreseeably have resulted in commission of serious offence. Whether the Sessions Court was justified in sentencing the Appellants with lifeimprisonment in connection with the act committed by them? It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble session court has incorrectly held the appellant as guilty of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. hence the appellant has filed an appeal under section 374 (2) Cr.PC which envisages that any person convicted on a trail held by a session 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 any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the high court.
incorporated in section 34 of IPC is called the principal of joint or constructive liability. Fundamentally in Mahbub Shah v_. Emperor_^2 the court laid down the following principals:-
of implicated important structure or organs or was very extensive or otherwise caused imminent danger and should also state the various grounds in which he considers the injury to be dangerous. As there is nothing on record to exhibit that broken ribs caused brain haemorrhage ruptured arota or major blood vessel or punctured lung or lacerated spleen, liver or kidneys. Therefore, because of the presence of the perplexity or obscurity that what really caused the death of the deceased one cannot hold appellants guilty on basic autopsy report. Mortality in patients with ribs fracture is uncommon (7%) and mortality directly related to fracture is rare (0.5%). Older patients are four times more likely to die as a direct result of rib fracture and may require additional resources. As deceased being an adult young male presumably having more bone density. Therefore mortality due to rib fracture is much more improbable.^3 It is further contended that as far as the nature of the weapon is concerned it’s a wooden walking stick not more than 1 kg and cannot be read within the purview of “dangerous weapon”as promulgated in section 324 and 346 of IPC. As per section 324 following weapons have been held to be dangerous weapons within the meaning of this section a) Axe b) Cheviot or sharp weapon c) Knife d) Razor blade e) Revolver f) Hot ladle g) Arrow h) Cudgel or iron shod stick (^3) Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd (^) edition)
death is very seldom. Physiologically it is not eminently dangerous therefore it culminates to set aside theimpugned judgment declared by the learned trial court. Nonetheless non fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in clause (3) and (4) of section 300 yields to withholding of a judgment ofthe learned trial court. C. Whether the act of the deceased amounted to grave and sudden provocation. It is humbly submitted that, indeed it infuriated all the three appellants. Appellants being father brother and uncle of Babita with whom deceased allegedly came to meet. As earlier has been reprimanded by Appellant 1 regarding deceased’s approach towards his daughter. Rebuking so, deceased unhesitatingly retried to entrap Babita in illicit affair. Section 300 of IPC, 1860 provides for 4 exceptions where the culpable homicide will not amount to murder. These exceptions are:
Therefore , in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble court;