memorial of ipc sec 302 and 326 B

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 1
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE
HIGH COURT
OF
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
NCT DELHI…………………………PROSECUTION
VS.
SUNIL & Ors…………………...………….Respondent

INDEX
1) LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS……………………………………3
2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………..4
3) TABLE OF STATUTE…………………………………………5
I. WEBSITES
II. BOOKS
III. TABLE OF CASES
4) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………...6
5) STATEMENTS OF FACTS …………………………………..7
6) GROUND OF APPEAL………………………………………..9
7) ARGUMENTS………………………………………………...10
8) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………...11
9) PRAYER ……………………………………………………...16

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. H.C High Court
2. S.C. Supreme Court
3 .A.I.R All India Reports
4. P&H Punjab and Haryana
5. Hon’ble Honourable
6. vs. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8.Vol. Volume
9.SCC Supreme Court Cases
10.Sec. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF STATUTES
1) INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
WEBSITES
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.lawfinderlive.com
3. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/
BOOKS
1. The Indian PenalCode Act No. 45 of 1860 by Prof. T. Bhattacharyya 18 the Edition.
2. The Indian PenalCode Act No.45 of 1860 By. Prof. Surya Narayan Mishra 20th
Edition.
3. P S A Pillai’s Criminal law by Prof. K I Vibhute 14th
Edition.

TABLE OF CASES
1. Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab
2. State of Assam vs. Abinash
3. Rajesh Kumar vs. Dharamvir
4. Machhi Singh v State of Punjab
5. Achok Debbarma Vs. State Of Tripura
6. Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh & others
7. Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka
8. Naidu Rastogii v. State of Bihar
9. Suresh vs. State of U.P

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for the petition before this learned court under the
Article-226 of Constitution of India:-
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases,any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any
other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such
interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the
vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such
order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application
within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy
of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last
day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and
if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the
case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

STATEMENT OF FACT
1. That a young woman named Reema,(22) succumbed to injuries at a private hospital in
Chandigarh on June 1, 2019 due to multiple organ failure as she had developed severe health
issues due to swallowing acid.
2. That the incident leading to the death of Reema occurred at Delhi Railway Station in 1 may
2019.
3. That the gruesome incident had set the local police on their heels as the man who threw acid
had concealed his face at the time of the attack. However, investigation by police & crime
branch, led to one Sunil (26) and his accomplice Ramesh (28) who were both neighbours of
deceased Reema.
4. That Sunil allegedly flung acid on Reema at Delhi railway station when she was getting down
from Rajdhani express from Chandigarh.
5. That the incident took place 6:30p.m. According to the police, Reema had secured a nursing
job with Delhi medical college and hospital in Delhi.
6. That Sunil was s hotel management graduate and despite his best efforts with unemployed.
7. That Sunil’s parents often used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite completing
his education and always praised Reema because of her education and career.
8. That Sunil used to confined in Ramesh, who was his childhood friend and used to tell him
about how Reema once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated
him for not being able to secure a job.
9. That Apart, they were in all praised for Reema as she could fetch a very good job in a
government hospital.
10. That Ramesh treated Sunil as his younger brother and therefore could not bear the pain of
Sunil and suggested him that he should find Reema alone and pressurise her not to accept the
job offer and to accept his marriage proposal.
11. That he further, suggested Sunil to threaten Reema with bottle of acid in order to pressurise
her for the same.
12. That Sunil wanted to disfigure Reema’s face so as to destroy her career.
13. That to teach her a lesson, Sunil procured a bottle of acid on April 30,2019 as soon as he
come to know that Reema was leaving for Delhi to join her new nursing job and he boarded
along with Ramesh.
14. That the same train taken by Reema and her family member to Delhi.
15. That on May 1, 2019 when Reema was getting down from Rajdhani express at the Delhi
Railway Station.
16. That Sunil alleged flung acid on her.
17. That it was Ramesh who helped Sunil in opening the bottle and Sunil allegedly threw the acid
on her face.
18. That subsequently, both Ramesh and Sunil fled away easily covering their faces.
19. That Reema was taken to the hospital by her family members.
20. That the doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were
grievous. FIR was lodged.
21. That Statement of Reema was recorded.
22. That A case was registered against both the accused under section 302,326B R/W SEC. 34
OF IPC, 1860.
23. That Ramesh absconded and Sunil was arrested by the police from his home at Chandigarh
and the bottle of acid used in crime was not recovered till now.

24. That After investigation he was put to trial before the session court where he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial and also alleged that he was Chandigarh at that day with his friend
Suresh who stated that Sunil was with him in Chandigarh at around 8:30p.m to 9:00p.m.
Further the name of Sunil was not found in passenger list of the train from Chandigarh to
Delhi that is Rajdhani express on 1 may 2019.
25. That as per the charge sheet. Sunil threw concentrated sulphuric acid at Reema as he envied
her career growth.
26. That the session court held that Sunil could not explain the scars which he had suffered as
few drops of acid fell on his hand.
27. That the session court convicted Sunil for the offences punishable under section 302 and 326
B of IPC and awarded him life imprisonment and seven year imprisonment and fine of Rs.
5000/- respectively for the offences.
28. That both the sentences were to run concurrently. Sunil aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement,
appealed before the high court seeking acquittal from the charges.
29. That Under the circumstances of the case,the session court had wrongly held Sunil liable
under sec. 326 B of ipc by invoking sec. 34 of ipc as no common intention to commit the
offence of acid attack under sec. 326 B could be proved.
30. That Where as state filed appeal demanding death penalty as the case is one of the “rarest of
rare cases”.
31. That the case is listed for argument before high court.

GROUND OF APPEAL
1. Whether the accused held liable under section 302 of I.P.C?
2. Whether the accused held liable under section 326B read with Sec. 34 of
I.P.C?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble high court that the accused must be
convicted under sec. 302 of IPC the accused-1 (Sunil) threw the acid on victim
with the help of accused-2 (Ramesh) which lead to death of a victim because
of grievous injuries to victims.
2. Whether the accused held liable under section 326B read with Sec. 34 of
I.P.C?
convicted under sec.326B R/W sec. 34 of IPC. The accused-1 (Sunil) threw
acid on victim with help of accused-2 (Ramesh). The accused-2 help the
accused-1 for open the acid bottle.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
convicted under sec. 302 of IPC the accused-1 (Sunil) threw the acid on victim with
the help of accused-2 (Ramesh) which lead to death of a victim because of grievous
injuries to victims.
According to the facts, the accused-1 (Sunil) l used to confined in accused-2
(Ramesh), who was his childhood friend and used to tell him about how Reema once rejected
his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated him for not being able to
secure a job. The accused-2 treated accused-1 as his younger brother and therefore could not
bear the pain of accused-1 and suggested him that he should find victim (Reema) alone and
teaches her a lesson. He further, suggested Sunil to threaten Reema with bottle of acid in
order to pressurise her for the same. The accused-1 (Sunil)procured a bottle of acid on April
30,2019 as soon as he come to know that Reema was leaving for Delhi to join her new
nursing job and he boarded along with accused-2(Ramesh).On may 1,2019 when Reema was
getting down from Rajdhani express at the Delhi Railway Station .The accused-1 alleged
flung acid on her. The victim (Reema) was taken to the hospital by her family members. The
doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous. FIR
was lodged. Statement of Reema was recorded. The death was caused during treatment
because of grievous injuries with acid.
300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,
Firstly -if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly.-If it is done 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, or
Thirdly.—If it is done 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, or
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid
In the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab1
the essentials of Murder was
discussed, which are already discussed above.
Also, in the case of State of Assam vs. Abinash Dutta2
, Court stated that a vindictive or
malicious act by a person implies that the act has been done with the motive of taking revenge
and this was happened in the case in hand.
1 AIR 1961 SC 843
2
AIR 1982 CrLJ 400

302. Punishment for murder.—whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Similarly in case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dharamvir, it was held by the Hon’ble court that all
the conditions of murder were satisfied and the accused was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment.
In the case of Machhi Singh v State of Punjab3, 3-Judge Bench observed that in
rarest of the rare cases when collective conscience of the community is shocked to
such an extent that it expects infliction of the death penalty from the holders of the
judicial power, the Court said that the community may entertain such a sentiment in
the following circumstances:
 The manner of the commission of the offence
 The motive for the commission of the offence
 The societal impact of the offence on the whole
 Facts and circumstances leading to the offence
 The vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the offender
 Magnitude of crime
 The personality of the victim of the offence
In the case of Achok Debbarma vs. State of Tripura4, It ruled that for awarding
death penalty the crime test has to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigation
circumstances favouring the accused, over and alone the rare of rarest test.
It is submitted that On April 30, 2019 accused-1 threw the acid on the face of victim (Reema)
at Delhi Railway Station when she was getting down from Rajdhani Express. Because of acid
attack the victim suffered many grievous injury. F.I.R was lodged and the statement of victim
was reordered during the treatment the victim died because of grievous injury.
3 AIR 1983 SC 957: (1983) 3 SCC 470: (1983) 3 SCR 413: 1983 (2) Crimes 268
4 (2014)4SCC747

2. Whether the accused held liable under section 326B read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C?
convicted under sec.326B R/W sec. 34 of IPC. The accused-1 (Sunil) threw acid on
victim with help of accused-2 (Ramesh). The accused-2 help the accused-1 for open
the acid bottle.
According to the facts, the accused-1 (Sunil) used to confine in accused-2 (Ramesh),
who was his childhood friend and used to tell him about how Reema once rejected his
marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated him for not being able to secure a
job. The accused-2 treated accused-1 as his younger brother and therefore could not bear the
pain of accused-1 and suggested him that he should find victim (Reema) alone and teach her a
lesson. He further, suggested Sunil to threaten Reema with bottle of acid in order to pressurise
her for the same. The accused-1 ( Sunil )procured a bottle of acid on April 30,2019 as soon
as he come to know that Reema was leaving for Delhi to join her new nursing job and he
boarded along with accused-2(Ramesh).On may 1,2019 when Reema was getting down from
Rajdhani express at the Delhi Railway Station .That accused-1 alleged flung acid on her. It
was accused-2(Ramesh) who helped accused-1(Sunil) in opening the bottle and accused-2
(Sunil) allegedly threw the acid on her face. Both accused-2 and accused-1 fled away easily
covering their faces.
326 B. Voluntary throwing or attempting to throw acid-
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid1
on any person or attempts to administer acid to
any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or
partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous
hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanations
1. For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance
which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily
injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
2. For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or
deformity shall not be required to be irreversible
In the case of Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh & others5
, while elaborating on the duty of
the Court while imposing sentence for an offence, it has been ruled that it is the duty of the
court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence
is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The
paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be
proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to
the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the
sentence it is the court’s accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for the
rule of law. It must evince the rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception
or a moral propensity. The Court further held that if in the ultimate eventuate the proper
5 (2014) 7 SCC 323

sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined and law does
not tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. It was
observed that the old saying “the law can hunt one’s past” cannot be allowed to be buried in
an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to
rule. The conception of mercy has its own space but it cannot occupy the whole
accommodation. While dealing with grant of further compensation in lieu of sentence, the
Court ruled:-
“We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Code would
be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for
all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the
justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim
and, eventually, to the cry of the society.”
In the case of Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka 6
held thus: - “In operating the
sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual
matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in
which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of
the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant
facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy
to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the
crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment.” In the said case, the Court ultimately set aside the sentence imposed by the High
Court and restored that of the trial Judge, whereby he had convicted the accused to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three years
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—Whena
criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.]
In Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar7, To attract Section 34 IPC it is not necessary
that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. It is enough if it is shown that
they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each
one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or diverse. The facts of
this case are eloquent and the role played by Bal Mukund Rastogi of preventing the
prosecution witnesses from going to the rescue of the deceased was the role played by
him with a view to achieve the ultimate objective of killing Shankar Rastogi. We,
therefore, entertain no doubt that all the five persons who came to the shop of the
informant had a common intention to commit the murder of Shankar Rastogi and they
acted pursuant to a pre arranged plan. The facts clearly are consistent only with the
hypothesis of their acting in furtherance of a common intention. They have, therefore,
rightly been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
6 (2012) 8 SCC 734
7 2002 Cri.L.j. 4698 (S.C.)

In Suresh vs. State of U.P. (Supra) wherein it has been observed that to attract
Section 34 IPC two postulates are indispensable:
(1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one
person, but more than one person.
(2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of
criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such
persons. He also drew our attention to the discussion in the judgment about the
difference between a "common intention" and "similar intention".
It has been observed by this Court that to attract the applicability of Section 34 of the
Code the prosecution is under an obligation to establish that there existed a common
intention which requires a pre-arranged plan, because before a man can be vicariously
convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance
of the common intention. The Court observed: "Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence. It makes a
person liable for action of an offence not committed by him but by another person
with whom he shared the common intention. It is a rule of evidence and does not
create a substantive offence. The section gives statutory recognition to the
commonsense principle that if more than two persons intentionally do a thing jointly;
it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. There is no gainsaying
that a common intention presupposes prior concert, which requires a prearranged plan
of the accused participating in an offence. Such preconcert or preplanning may
develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial
test is that such plan must precede the act constituting an offence. Common intention
can be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the
moment.
It is submitted that accused 1 &2 have common intention to commit the crime. The
accused-1 used to confine in accused-2, who was his childhood friend and used to tell him
about how victim once rejected his marriage proposal and also how his parents had ill-treated
him for not being able to secure a job. The accused-2 treated accused-1 as his younger brother
and therefore could not bear the pain of accused-1 and suggested him that he should find
Reema alone and pressurise her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriage
proposal. On April 30, 2019 accused-1 procured a bottle of acid. On May 1, 2019 when
victim was getting down from Rajdhani express at Delhi railway station. The accused-1 threw
the bottle of acid on the face of victim and accused-2 help the accused -1 for opening the acid
bottle. Before the incident accused-2 abetted the accused-1 for acid attack on victim.
In the present case Hon’ble session court awarded him life imprisonment and seven years
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000- respectably for the offence. Both the sentence were to
run concurrently. I request to Hon’ble high court to awarded death penalty to both accused.

Prayer
Therefore,in light of the issued raised, argument advance and authorities cited. The counsel for the
prosecution most humbly prays that the Hon’ble court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:-
The counsel submit to Hon’ble session court awarded him life imprisonment and seven
years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000- respectably for the offence. Both the sentence were to run
concurrently. And the counsel prays to enhance the punishment and give justice to decease
And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
(SD/-)
Counsel on behalf of prosecution
Date:
Place:

memorial of ipc sec 302 and 326 B

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to memorial of ipc sec 302 and 326 B (20)

More from gagan deep (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

memorial of ipc sec 302 and 326 B