1

Team Code:

IME LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT 2024

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.C. NO. ____ /20_ _

In the Matter of

Brij Bhushan Singh

(APPELLANT)

V.

State Of Maharashtra

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for the Defence

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 2

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 4

Index of Authorities 5-6

• Table of Cases 5

• Books 6

• Websites 6

• Statutes 6

Statement of Jurisdiction 7

Statement of Facts 8-9

Statement of Issues 10

Summary of Arguments 11-14

Arguments Advanced 15-32

Issue-I: THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER 15-18

SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

Issue-II: THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF A 19-22

COMMON INTENTION, AS REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 34

OF THE IPC.

Issue-III: THERE WAS PROVOCATION OR SELF-DEFENCE ON THE PART 23-26

OF THE DECEASED OR THE ACCUSED THE COULD AFFECT THE

NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.

Issue-IV: THE APPELLANT’S THREAT TO PW1 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE 27-29

UNDER THE IPC.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3

Issue-V: THERE ARE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD 30-32

AFFECT THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANT.

Prayer 33

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
IPC Indian Penal Code
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
E.g. Example
Hon’ble Honorable
No. Number
Ors. Others
r/w Read with
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
u/s Under Section
v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh

2. State of Rajasthan v. Ram Pal

3. State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh

4. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab

5. State of Maharashtra v. Chandumal Ganpati Bagra & Ors. (2005)

6. Ajit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (1999)

7. Ramesh Singh v. State of Bihar (1977)

8. Karnel Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. (2008)

9. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (2003)

10. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959)

11. State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Naim (1966)

12. Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992)

13. Gulabchand v. State of Rajasthan (2013)

14. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)

15. Muthu Kumar v. State (2015)

16. State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash (2007)

17. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab

18. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

19. Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

20. Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat

21. Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar

22. Mithu v. State of Punjab

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 6

BOOKS:

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)

2. P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law (13th Ed. 2017)

3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)

4. Gupta and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)

5. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)

6. Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)

7. I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatrafast.com

3. http://www.findlaw.com

4. http://www.judis.nic.in

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com

STATUTES:

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)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to hear and

decide the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which grants the

Supreme Court the power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,

determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or

tribunal in the territory of India.

The present appeal arises from the impugned judgment of the High Court of West Bengal,

which affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's judgment is a final determination of

the appellant's criminal liability and has resulted in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for

life.

The appellant has exhausted all avenues of appeal available under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, and the present appeal is the final recourse for the appellant to seek justice.

Therefore, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeal and grant

appropriate relief in accordance with law.

The Counsels for the Respondent most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The statement of facts for this case would include:

1. On the 2nd of August 1976, PW1 Shri Khiroda Mohan Paul, fulfilling his

role as the Head Master of a High School, and the deceased Purna Chandra

Ghosh, who served as an assistant teacher at the same educational

institution, were making their homeward journey following the day's duties

at school.

2. Despite the deceased being in possession of a bicycle, both individuals

opted to traverse the distance to their village on foot.

3. Upon reaching the vicinity of the railway gate, they encountered the

appellant, Arjun Mondal, accompanied by Susanta Kr. Chandra and Rabu.

4. The appellant and Arjun, in a confrontational manner, approached the

deceased, leveling accusations of assaulting the appellant's elder brother.

5. What ensued was a heated exchange of words, with the tension escalating

as the appellant and Arjun prominently displayed their knives.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 9

6. In an attempt to diffuse the situation, PW1 intervened, only to face the

threat of violence from the appellant wielding his knife.

7. Matters quickly escalated into a physical altercation between Arjun and the

deceased, resulting in Arjun inflicting fatal injuries upon the deceased with

his knife.

8. Following this tragic incident, the appellant and Arjun swiftly departed

from the scene.

9. Subsequently, the Sessions Court found the appellant guilty under Section

302 read in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, meting

out a sentence of life imprisonment.

10. Upholding the decision, the High Court affirmed the conviction and the

imposed sentence, prompting the appellant to pursue an appeal in response.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER SECTION
302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON
INTENTION, AS REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE WAS PROVOCATION OR SELF-DEFENCE ON THE PART OF THE
DECEASED OR THE ACCUSED THE COULD AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S THREAT TO PW1 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE UNDER
THE IPC.

ISSUE V: WHETHER THERE ARE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD AFFECT
THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANT.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 11

Statement of Arguments

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER SECTION

302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the evidence establishes that the appellant

and Arjun acted in furtherance of a common intention to cause the death of the deceased. They

were seen together at the scene of the crime, engaged in a heated argument with the deceased

and PW1. The use of knives by both the appellant and Arjun indicates a premeditated plan to

cause harm. The actions of the appellant and Arjun were coordinated and indicate a shared

intent to commit the crime. The appellant and Arjun's actions were not spontaneous but a result

of prior preparation and conspiracy. The fact that they were carrying knives indicates that they

had planned to use them if the situation arose. The suddenness of the attack does not negate

the existence of a premeditated plan. The injuries inflicted on the deceased were severe and

clearly intended to cause death. The appellant and Arjun's use of knives, a deadly weapon,

demonstrates their intent to kill. The nature and extent of the injuries indicate a deliberate and

planned act, rather than a spontaneous response to provocation. There is no evidence to suggest

that the appellant and Arjun were provoked by the deceased or PW1 to the extent that their

actions could be justified as self-defense or a sudden fight. The attack appears to have been

unprovoked and motivated by a desire to cause harm. While there may be some arguments

regarding the circumstantial nature of the evidence, when viewed as a whole, the evidence

overwhelmingly points towards the guilt of the appellant and Arjun. The circumstances

surrounding the incident, including the presence of knives, the nature of the injuries, and the

actions of the appellant and Arjun, all indicate a planned and intentional act to cause death.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 12

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON

INTENTION, AS REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the actions of the appellant and Arjun

were clearly coordinated and indicate a shared intention to cause harm to the deceased. They

were seen together at the scene of the crime, engaged in a heated argument with the deceased

and PW1. Both the appellant and Arjun took out knives simultaneously, demonstrating a

preplanned and concerted effort. There appears to have been a division of roles between the

appellant and Arjun in carrying out the attack. While the appellant questioned the deceased,

Arjun caught hold of the deceased's bicycle, indicating a division of labor with a common goal.

The use of knives by both the appellant and Arjun is indicative of a common intention to cause

serious harm or death. The choice of such a deadly weapon suggests a premeditated plan to

cause harm, rather than a spontaneous act. The actions of the appellant and Arjun demonstrate

mutual support and assistance in carrying out the attack. They were seen together throughout

the incident, suggesting a shared intention and a mutual understanding of their roles. There is

no evidence to suggest any contradictory actions between the appellant and Arjun during the

incident. Their actions were consistent with a common intention to cause harm to the deceased.

After committing the act, both the appellant and Arjun left the scene together, indicating a joint

commitment to the plan and a shared understanding of their actions.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE WAS PROVOCATION OR SELF-DEFENCE ON THE PART OF THE

DECEASED OR THE ACCUSED THE COULD AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.

The counsel submits that There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant and Arjun were

provoked by the deceased to the extent that their actions could be justified as self-defense or a

sudden fight. The alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother, even if true, does not justify

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 13

the use of deadly force by the appellant and Arjun. Even if there was some provocation, the

use of knives and the severity of the attack by the appellant and Arjun far exceeded any

reasonable response to the situation. The injuries inflicted on the deceased were severe and

clearly intended to cause death, indicating a disproportionate response to any alleged

provocation. The actions of the appellant and Arjun appear to have been preemptive rather than

defensive. They were the aggressors in the situation, taking out knives and initiating the

confrontation with the deceased and PW1. This indicates that their actions were not in response

to any immediate threat but part of a planned and deliberate attack. There is no evidence to

suggest that the appellant and Arjun were in immediate danger of serious harm or death that

would justify their use of deadly force. The use of knives indicates a premeditated plan to cause

harm, rather than a spontaneous act of self-defense. There is no evidence to suggest that the

appellant and Arjun attempted to retreat or avoid the confrontation with the deceased. Instead,

they actively engaged in the altercation, indicating that their actions were not driven by a desire

to defend themselves but by a willingness to cause harm.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S THREAT TO PW1 CONSTITUTES AN

OFFENSE UNDER THE IPC.

The counsel submits that the nature of the appellant's threat to PW1 should be evaluated in the

context of the overall situation. The threat was made in the heat of the moment during a

confrontation, and its seriousness and intent should be assessed accordingly. There is no

evidence to suggest that the appellant's threat to PW1 resulted in any immediate harm or danger

to PW1. The threat may have been made to deter PW1 from intervening in the altercation rather

than with the intent to cause harm. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant followed

through on his threat to PW1. The threat may have been made in a moment of anger or

frustration and not with a genuine intent to cause harm. The appellant's threat to PW1 may

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 14

have been a provoked response to the situation. The appellant and Arjun were engaged in a

confrontation with the deceased and PW1, and the threat may have been a reaction to perceived

provocation or interference. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant has a history of

making threats or engaging in violent behavior. The threat to PW1 may have been an isolated

incident in the context of a heated altercation.

ISSUE V: WHETHER THERE ARE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT

COULD AFFECT THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANT.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appellant has no previous criminal

record, indicating that the present offense may be an isolated incident rather than a pattern of

criminal behavior. This factor should be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

Arjun, one of the accused, was a juvenile at the time of the incident. His young age and possibly

immature judgment should be taken into consideration while determining his culpability and

the appropriate punishment. The appellant and Arjun may have been under emotional distress

due to the alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother. This emotional state could have

clouded their judgment and led to an overreaction to the situation, resulting in the use of knives

in a moment of anger or fear. The appellant and Arjun may have been facing adverse

circumstances in their personal lives or socio-economic background, which could have

contributed to their actions. These factors should be taken into consideration as potential

mitigating circumstances. The appellant and Arjun may have shown remorse for their actions

and cooperated with the investigation. This willingness to accept responsibility and cooperate

with the authorities should be considered as a mitigating factor. Given the absence of a previous

criminal record and the young age of Arjun, there is a possibility of rehabilitation. The

appellant and Arjun may benefit from rehabilitation programs rather than harsh punishment.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:

THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ARE GUILTY OF MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE.

The respondent submits that the appellant and Arjun are guilty of murder under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellant and Arjun were involved in a premeditated attack on the deceased, resulting in his

death.

1.1 Presence of Weapons:

The appellant and Arjun were armed with knives, indicating a premeditated intent to cause

harm. The use of weapons shows a calculated decision to attack the deceased, rather than a

spontaneous act.

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh: In this case, the accused was found guilty of murder under

Section 302 of the IPC based on the presence of a weapon (a knife) and the deliberate nature

of the attack.

1.2 Assault on Deceased:

The appellant and Arjun assaulted the deceased with knives, resulting in fatal injuries. The

nature and extent of the injuries suggest an intention to cause death or grievous harm.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 16

State of Rajasthan v. Ram Pal: This case emphasizes the significance of the presence of a

weapon in determining the intention of the accused. The use of a weapon such as a knife

indicates a deliberate act to cause harm.

1.3 Lack of Provocation:

There is no evidence to suggest that the deceased provoked the appellant and Arjun or that they

acted in self-defense. The attack was unprovoked and unjustified, indicating a clear intent to

cause harm.

State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh: This case discusses the importance of considering the nature

of the weapon used in determining the intention of the accused. The use of a deadly weapon

like a knife suggests an intent to cause serious harm or death.

1.4 Common Intention:

The appellant and Arjun acted in furtherance of a common intention to cause the death of the

deceased. Their coordinated attack and use of weapons demonstrate a shared intent to commit

the offense.

State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab: This case highlights the role

of weapons in establishing the culpability of the accused. The presence of weapons and their

use in the commission of a crime can indicate a premeditated plan to cause harm.

1.5 Absence of Accidental Death:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 17

The death of the deceased was not accidental but a result of a deliberate and intentional act by

the appellant and Arjun. Their actions constitute murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code.

1.6 Evidence of Intent:

The prosecution has presented compelling evidence to establish the appellant and Arjun's intent

to cause death. The use of deadly weapons, such as knives, and the nature of the injuries

inflicted on the deceased demonstrate a clear intention to kill.

1.7 Witness Testimony:

The testimony of eyewitnesses, including PW1, supports the prosecution's case against the

appellant and Arjun. The witnesses have provided consistent accounts of the incident,

corroborating the prosecution's version of events.

1.8 Motive:

While motive is not a necessary element to prove murder, the prosecution has presented

evidence suggesting a motive for the attack. The alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother

by the deceased could have been a motivating factor for the appellant and Arjun's actions.

1.9 No Evidence of Self-defense:

There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant and Arjun acted in self-defense. The

prosecution has established that the attack was unprovoked and unjustified, ruling out any

possibility of self-defense.

1.10 Burden of Proof:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 18

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellant and Arjun

beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has met this burden through the presentation of

credible evidence and witness testimony.

In light of the evidence presented, the respondent reiterates its submission that the appellant

and Arjun are guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution

has successfully established all elements of the offense, and there are no mitigating

circumstances to justify a different conclusion.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 19

ISSUE 2:

THE APPELLANT AND ARJUN ACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON INTENTION, AS

REQUIRED FOR LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent submits that the

appellant and Arjun acted in furtherance of a common intention, as required for liability

under Section 34 of the IPC.

2.1 Coordinated Attack:

The appellant and Arjun's coordinated attack on the deceased demonstrates a shared intent to

commit the offense. Their simultaneous use of knives and the nature of the injuries inflicted

indicate a pre-planned and concerted effort to cause harm.

State of Maharashtra v. Chandumal Ganpati Bagra & Ors. (2005): In this case, the Supreme

Court of India held that for the application of Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence to show

that the criminal act was done by several persons with a common intention.

2.2 Presence at the Scene:

Both the appellant and Arjun were present at the scene of the crime and actively participated

in the attack on the deceased. Their presence and involvement in the incident establish a

common intention to commit the offense.

Ajit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (1999): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the

common intention of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere membership

of a group or association is not sufficient to prove common intention unless there is evidence

to establish the active participation of each accused in the commission of the offense.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 20

2.3 Division of Roles:

While both the appellant and Arjun were involved in the attack, they may have had different

roles or responsibilities. However, their actions were complementary and aimed at achieving

a common goal, which is indicative of a shared intention.

Ramesh Singh v. State of Bihar (1977): The Supreme Court held that the essence of Section

34 IPC is the unity of purpose and the combination of the minds of the accused to commit the

criminal act. Liability under Section 34 cannot be fastened on the accused if there is no meeting

of minds or if their acts are independent of each other.

2.4 Lack of Dissent:

There is no evidence to suggest that either the appellant or Arjun dissented from the plan to

attack the deceased. Their actions were consistent with a shared understanding and intent to

cause harm.

Karnel Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. (2008): The Supreme Court reiterated that to establish

common intention, there must be evidence to show that the accused shared a common intention

to commit the crime. It is not necessary that all the accused actively participated in the

commission of the offense, but there must be evidence of their participation in furtherance of

the common intention.

2.5 Joint Liability:

Section 34 of the IPC imposes joint liability on individuals who act in furtherance of a common

intention. The appellant and Arjun's joint actions and shared intent make them equally liable

for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 21

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (2003): The Supreme Court emphasized that the

prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a common intention among

the accused to commit the criminal act. Mere presence at the scene of the crime or even prior

knowledge of the crime is not sufficient to establish common intention.

2.6 Planning and Preparation:

The appellant and Arjun's actions suggest a degree of planning and preparation, indicating a

shared intention to commit the offense. The presence of knives and the manner in which they

were used demonstrate a premeditated plan to cause harm to the deceased.

2.7 Concerted Effort:

The appellant and Arjun's attack on the deceased was a concerted effort, with both parties

actively participating in the assault. Their coordinated actions, including the use of weapons

and infliction of fatal injuries, indicate a common intention to cause harm.

2.8 Culpable Conduct:

Both the appellant and Arjun displayed culpable conduct during the incident, which is

indicative of a shared intention. Their actions were not accidental or spontaneous but were

deliberate and aimed at achieving a common goal, i.e., causing harm to the deceased.

2.9 Unity of Purpose:

The appellant and Arjun acted with a unity of purpose, working together to achieve a common

objective. Their actions were not independent or individualistic but were part of a joint effort

to commit the offense of murder.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 22

2.10 Joint Liability:

Section 34 of the IPC imposes joint liability on individuals who act in furtherance of a common

intention. The appellant and Arjun's joint actions and shared intent make them equally liable

for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

In light of the evidence and circumstances of the case, the respondent reiterates its submission

that the appellant and Arjun acted in furtherance of a common intention to commit the offense

of murder. Their coordinated and concerted actions, along with the absence of any dissent or

disagreement, establish their joint liability under Section 34 of the IPC.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 23

ISSUE 3:

THERE WAS PROVOCATION OR SELF-DEFENCE ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED OR THE

ACCUSED THE COULD AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent submits that there was no

provocation or self-defense on the part of the deceased or the accused that could affect the

nature of the offense. The appellant and Arjun's actions were unjustified and constitute murder

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.1 Absence of Provocation:

The prosecution has presented no evidence to suggest that the deceased provoked the appellant

and Arjun or that his actions justified their attack. In the absence of any provocation, the

appellant and Arjun's use of deadly force against the deceased cannot be justified.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959): This case is a landmark in Indian legal history

and deals extensively with the concepts of provocation and self-defense.

3.2 Preemptive Strike:

The appellant and Arjun's attack on the deceased appears to have been preemptive and not in

response to any immediate threat or provocation. This is supported by the fact that the appellant

and Arjun were armed with knives, indicating a premeditated plan to cause harm.

State of Maharashtra v. Mohammad Naim (1966): In this case, the accused was charged with

murder for stabbing the deceased with a knife during a quarrel. The accused pleaded self-

defense, claiming that the deceased was armed with a knife and was about to stab him. The

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 24

Supreme Court held that the accused's act was done in the heat of passion caused by sudden

provocation. As a result, the offense was reduced from murder to culpable homicide not

amounting to murder.

3.3 No Retreat:

There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant and Arjun attempted to retreat or avoid the

confrontation with the deceased. Their decision to engage in a physical altercation, armed with

knives, indicates a willingness to escalate the situation rather than resolve it peacefully.

Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992): The accused was charged with murder for causing the

death of his wife by setting her on fire. The accused claimed that he acted in self-defense as

his wife was attempting to attack him with a kerosene lamp. The Supreme Court observed that

the evidence suggested that the deceased had set herself on fire and that the accused's actions

were in self-defense to save himself from her attack. Consequently, the offense was reduced

from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

3.4 Disproportionate Response:

Even if the deceased had assaulted the appellant's elder brother, the appellant and Arjun's

response was disproportionate and unjustified. The use of deadly force, resulting in the death

of the deceased, was excessive and not justified by any provocation or self-defense.

Gulabchand v. State of Rajasthan (2013): In this case, the accused was charged with murder

for causing the death of the deceased by hitting him with a stick. The accused claimed that he

acted in self-defense as the deceased was assaulting him with a knife. The Supreme Court held

that the accused's act was done under circumstances of grave and sudden provocation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 25

Therefore, the offense was reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder.

3.5 Lack of Imminent Threat:

There is no evidence to suggest that the deceased posed an imminent threat to the appellant

and Arjun's safety or that they acted in self-defense. The attack on the deceased appears to

have been planned and deliberate, rather than a spontaneous reaction to a threat.

3.6 Absence of Imminent Threat:

The evidence indicates that at the time of the incident, there was no imminent threat to the

appellant and Arjun's safety that would justify their actions. The deceased, who was allegedly

armed with a bicycle and an umbrella, did not pose a serious threat that required the use of

deadly force.

3.7 Lack of Retaliation:

There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant and Arjun were retaliating against a previous

attack or provocation by the deceased. The alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother, even

if true, was not an immediate or ongoing threat that would justify the use of deadly force.

3.8 Excessive Force:

The appellant and Arjun's use of knives and the severity of the attack suggest that their actions

were not in self-defense or in response to provocation. The force used was excessive and

disproportionate to any threat posed by the deceased, indicating an intent to cause harm rather

than to protect themselves.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 26

3.9 Preemptive Strike:

The evidence suggests that the appellant and Arjun's attack on the deceased was a preemptive

strike, intended to eliminate a perceived threat rather than to defend against an immediate

danger. This further undermines any claim of self-defense or provocation.

3.10 No Reasonable Apprehension:

Based on the evidence presented, there is no indication that the appellant and Arjun had a

reasonable apprehension of danger that would justify their actions. The attack on the deceased

appears to have been a calculated and deliberate act, rather than a response to a genuine threat.

In conclusion, the respondent maintains that there was no provocation or self-defense on the

part of the deceased or the accused that could affect the nature of the offense. The appellant

and Arjun's actions were unjustified and constitute murder under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 27

ISSUE 4:

THE APPELLANT’S THREAT TO PW1 CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE UNDER

THE IPC.

It is humbly submitted that the nature of the appellant's threat to PW1 should be evaluated in

the context of the overall situation. The threat was made in the heat of the moment during a

confrontation, and its seriousness and intent should be assessed accordingly.

4.1 Appellant's Threat:

The defense argues that the appellant's threat to PW1 does not constitute an offense under the

IPC. Mere words or threats, without any accompanying act, may not constitute an offense. The

threat must be of such a nature that it creates a reasonable apprehension of harm in the mind

of the person threatened.

State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991): In this case, the accused was

charged under Section 506 of the IPC for criminal intimidation after he threatened PW1 with

dire consequences if he testified against him in court.

The Supreme Court held that the accused's threat to PW1 amounted to criminal intimidation

under Section 506 IPC, as it was intended to cause alarm to PW1 and induce him to withhold

or change his testimony. The court emphasized that any threat aimed at influencing a witness's

testimony constitutes an offense under the IPC.

4.2 Provocation:

The defense argues that the deceased's alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother was a

provocation that led to the altercation. The appellant and Arjun may have acted in self-defense

or in response to this provocation, which could affect the nature of the offense.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 28

Muthu Kumar v. State (2015): The accused in this case was charged under Sections 506 and

506(2) IPC for threatening PW1, a key witness in a criminal case, to dissuade him from

testifying against the accused. The court found the accused guilty of criminal intimidation

under Section 506 IPC, as his threats caused PW1 to fear for his safety and refrain from

cooperating with the prosecution. The judgment reiterated that threats made to witnesses with

the intention of obstructing justice constitute an offense under the IPC.

4.3 Provocation and Self-defense:

The defense further argues that the deceased's alleged assault on the appellant's elder brother

was a significant provocation that led to the altercation. The appellant and Arjun may have

acted in self-defense or in response to this provocation, which could affect the nature of the

offense.

State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash (2007): In this case, the accused was charged under Section

506 IPC for threatening PW1, who was a crucial witness in a criminal case, in order to dissuade

him from deposing truthfully before the court. The court held that the accused's threats to PW1

constituted criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, as they were intended to deter PW1

from giving evidence against the accused.

The judgment underscored the importance of safeguarding witnesses from intimidation to

ensure the administration of justice.

4.4 Context of the Threat:

The defense argues that the appellant's alleged threat to PW1 should be considered in the

context of the overall situation. The threat was made during a chaotic and tense altercation,

and it may not have been intended to cause harm but rather to intimidate or scare PW1.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 29

4.5 Absence of Harm:

There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant's threat actually resulted in any harm to PW1.

The threat, if any, was a verbal statement made in the heat of the moment and may not have

been carried out or followed by any physical action.

4.6 Lack of Intent:

The defense contends that the appellant did not have the requisite intent to cause harm to PW1.

The threat, if it occurred, was a spontaneous reaction to the situation and was not a

premeditated act to cause harm or instill fear in PW1.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 30

ISSUE-5

THERE ARE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD AFFECT

THE SENTENCING OF THE APPELLANT.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the appellant has no previous criminal

record, indicating that the present offense may be an isolated incident rather than a pattern of

criminal behavior. This factor should be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

5.1 Mitigating Circumstances:

The defense argues that there are several mitigating circumstances that should be considered

in sentencing the appellant. These circumstances suggest that the appellant's actions were not

premeditated or malicious but rather a result of the specific circumstances of the altercation.

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab: In this case, the Supreme Court of India laid down principles

for awarding the death penalty. The court emphasized the need to consider the mitigating

circumstances of the crime and the criminal before deciding on the sentence.

5.2 No Prior Criminal Record:

The appellant has no prior criminal record, indicating that this incident may be an isolated

event rather than a pattern of criminal behavior. This suggests that the appellant is unlikely to

reoffend and may be rehabilitated with appropriate intervention.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: This case reiterated the importance of considering

mitigating circumstances in sentencing. The court held that the death penalty should only be

imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative punishment is unquestionably

foreclosed.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 31

Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi: In this case, the court considered the accused's

lack of prior criminal record as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court noted that this was

the accused's first offense and that there was no evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior.

5.3 Young Age of Arjun:

Arjun, one of the accused, was a juvenile at the time of the incident. His young age and possibly

immature judgment should be taken into consideration while determining his culpability and

the appropriate punishment.

Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat: The court considered the accused's young age

as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court noted that the accused's young age and possibly

immature judgment should be taken into consideration.

5.4 Lack of Premeditation:

The evidence suggests that the appellant and Arjun's actions were spontaneous and not part of

a premeditated plan to cause death. The suddenness of the altercation and the use of whatever

means were at hand, such as knives and other objects, indicate a lack of premeditation.

Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar: In this case, the court considered the accused's emotional

state as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court found that the accused's actions were a

result of emotional turmoil rather than a premeditated plan to cause harm.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 32

5.5 Emotional State:

The defense argues that the appellant and Arjun were in an emotional state due to the alleged

assault on the appellant's elder brother. This emotional turmoil may have clouded their

judgment and led to their actions during the altercation.

Mithu v. State of Punjab: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory death

penalty for murder under Section 302 of the IPC was unconstitutional. The court emphasized

the need for individualized sentencing based on the circumstances of the case and the offender.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 33

PRAYER

In the Supreme Court of India

Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 20_ _

Brij Bhushan SIngh ….Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …..Respondent

May it please the Hon'ble Court to:

1. Dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Uphold the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life imposed on the appellant.

4. Grant any other relief or order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the

circumstances of the case.

Place: _______

Date: ________

Signature

Counsel for the Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT