TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 03.

2. Index of Authorities 04.

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 07.

4. Statement of Facts 08.

5. Statement of Issues 10.

6. Summary of Arguments 11.

7. Argument Advanced 13.

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by appellant is maintainable 13.

under the Supreme Court of Windia?
Issue 2: Whether appellant acted under “Grave and Sudden 15.
Provocation”, which led her to commit murder of her Husband
and Child?
Issue 3: Whether appellant is liable for committing murder of 21.
her husband and child?
8. Prayer 25.

2 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSTION

AIR All India Repoter

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

BSA Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

&. And

Vs. Versus

3 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

S.No. CASE LAWS

1. K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra,1962 AIR 605

2. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299

3. Haripoda Vs. Stak of West Bengal 1956 AIR 157

4. Nanavati Vs. Stak of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605

5. Akhtar Vs. Stak AIR 1964 ALLAHABAD 262

6. Rajendra Marar & Ans Vs. The State, AIR 2024

7. Arun Raj Vs. Vnion of India and Another (2010) 6 SCC 457

8. K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra,1962 AIR 605

9. Kavashanjir Mamabuvala Vs State of Gujrat AIR 1999

10. Kaju Bani Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR,2017

11. Karu Malik Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2266

12. Virsa Singh Vs. The Stateof Punjab 1965 SCR (1) 123

13. State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H.George 1965 SCR 123

14. B.D Khunte vs. Union of India, AIR 2014

4 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 BOOK REFERRED

• K.N. Chandrashekhar, Pillai,Essays on Indian Penal Code, 1860, Universal Law

Publication, 2019.

* T. Bhattacharya,The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Central Law Agency, 2017

• K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 2019

• S.C. Sarkar, Sarkar’s – Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Jain Book Depot,
2015

* Rattan Lal and DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2019

* Sir H.S. Gour, H.S. Gour’s Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Law Publishers
(India) Pvt. Ltd., 2017

STATUTES

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

3. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

5 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 WEBSITES

HTTPS://WWW.MANUPATRAFAST.COM/

HTTPS://WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM/

HTTPS://INDIANKANOON.ORG/

HTTPS://WWW.CASEMINE.COM/

HTTPS://WWW.AIRONLINE.IN/

HTTPS://WWW.LAWFINDERLIVE.COM/

HTTPS://WWW.LIVELAW.IN/

6 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Article 134 of The
Constitution of Windia.

Article 134 in Constitution of Windia:-

134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters,

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-

(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or

(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or

(c) certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:

Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require.

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified
in such law.

7 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Appellant Stephanie and Deceased Jones are husband and wife by relation. They both
were married on October 23, 2012, in an arranged marriage in the city of Shipla. Within two
years of their marriage, appellant gave birth to a son with special needs, which significantly
increased their financial burdens due to ongoing treatment costs. This pressure took a toll on
their relationship. Unable to cope with the stress, Jones turned to alcohol, leading to frequent
and intense arguments between the couple.

For nearly six months after the birth of their son, the couple managed their challenges at
home privately, keeping their struggles hidden from their families. However, on January 2,
2018, deceased returned home and an intense argument erupted between them. In light of this
incident and their worsening financial difficulties, the Appellant to confide in her in-laws and
parents about their situation. With the support of both families and a promise of financial
assistance, Jones committed to quitting drinking and focusing on his family.

But in late May 2018, deceased changed his job & went to take a new job with a promotion
which considerably improved his financial condition. The Couple was leading a happy life.
Also, after seeing the better financial condition in July 2018 the financial support from the
parents of the couple stopped. Later in that year the relationship between the couple started to
get effected because of constant quarrels and aggressive arguments.

Then the history repeated as there was a series of fights between both of them. On night of
21 March 2019, deceased came drunk at home and again there was quarrel between both of
them which turn into physical quarrel and that physical violence continued till 11:00O On
the early morning of 22 March 2019 around 4 am, she took Iron rod in her hand & went to
her bed room and inflicted injuries on Jones’s head & vital body parts which resulted into
death of deceased on the spot. Appellant then at 6:30 am went to the room and inflicted a hit
on the head of her child which resulted in the death of the child on the spot.

After all this she sat in her drawing room holding Iron rod in her hand. Later, when around
8:00 am when her maid came & saw everything, she immediately called the police &
appellant was arrested. Husband Jones and the child was taken to hospital, where they were
declared brought dead in the hospital.

8 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

Police started inquires & case was filed against appellant. During the trial in the session wife
was held not liable for murder on the ground that she acted under the grave and sudden
provocation and is thus liable for culpable homicide. However, the Shipla High Court
convicted Stephanie for Murder. Now, Stephanie has filed an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Windia.

9 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by deceased is maintainable under the Supreme
Court of Windia?

Issue 2: Whether deceased acted under “Grave and Sudden Provocation”, which led her
to commit murder of her Husband and Child?

Issue 3: Whether deceased is liable for committing murder of her husband and child?

10 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by deceased is maintainable under the Supreme
Court of Windia?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the appeal filed by the deceased is not
maintainable before the Supreme Court of Windia. The right to appeal against acquittal,
vested in the State Government, should be exercised cautiously and only in cases of public
importance or significant miscarriage of justice. The High Court has already thoroughly
reviewed and correctly assessed the evidence, reversing the earlier erroneous judgment of the
lower court.

The Supreme Court generally exercises its appellate jurisdiction selectively, particularly in
criminal cases, where it does not re-evaluate factual determinations unless there is clear
evidence of grave injustice, which is not present in this case. Therefore, as there is no merit in
the appeal, it should be dismissed.

Issue 2: Whether deceased acted under “Grave and Sudden Provocation”, which led her
to commit murder of her Husband and Child?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the deceased's
claim of "grave and sudden provocation" is untenable due to a significant time lapse (over
five hours) between the last altercation and the act, which allowed for reflection, undermining
any assertion of impulsiveness. Additionally, the deliberate choice of a heavy iron rod and
targeted attacks on both her husband and child indicate premeditated intent rather than a
spontaneous reaction to provocation. While past abuse may have caused emotional distress, it
does not qualify as the immediate and intense provocation required by law at the time of the
incident. The act against the child, who posed no threat, further demonstrates a calculated
mindset, suggesting that the case should be treated as premeditated murder rather than
culpable homicide.

11 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 Issue 3: Whether deceased is liable for committing murder of her husband and child?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the court that the deceased is liable for
the murders of her husband and child under Sections 101 and 103 of the BNS, 2023. Her
actions on March 22, 2019, when she deliberately used a heavy iron rod to strike both victims
in the head, demonstrate clear intent to kill, as the chosen method was capable of causing
fatal harm. The evidence establishes both actus reus (the physical act of murder) and mens
rea (the intent to commit murder), as she exhibited a premeditated plan to inflict lethal
injuries. By targeting vital areas with a dangerous weapon, the deceased acted with malicious
intent and without justification, fulfilling the legal criteria for murder. Therefore, her
conviction is both lawful and appropriate.

12 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by deceased is maintainable under the Supreme
Court of Windia?

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal is not
maintainable. The right of appeal against acquittal vested in the State Government should be
used sparingly and with circumspection and it is to be made only in case of public importance
or where there has been a miscarriage of justice of a very grave nature. The HC, had rightly
perceived and assessed the evidence on record and as a result reversed the erroneous
judgment of the Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment would not call for any interference
at the hands of this Court as there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeals may be
dismissed.

Moreover, the Supreme Court generally exercises appellate jurisdiction selectively, especially
in criminal cases where factual determinations, including assessments of evidence, have been
thoroughly examined by the High Court. The Supreme Court does not function as a court of
re-evaluation of facts unless a gross miscarriage of justice is evident, which has not been
established in this case.

In K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra1 : This case was a sensitive and sensational
murder trial that eventually led to the abolition of the jury system in India. The case was
initially tried before a jury, whose verdict was later set aside by the Bombay High Court. The
case was then appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 134.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain2 : This case dealt with the election dispute between
Indira Gandhi and Raj Narain. The Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi’s election
to be null and void, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 134.

In, Haripada v. State of West Bengal3 , In this case, the deceased was convicted by the
Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta of an offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to imprisonment for two years. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed by the
1
1. K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605
2
2. Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
3
3. Haripada v. The State of West Bengal 1956 AIR 757

13 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

High Court at Calcutta, but the Calcutta High Court granted a certificate for leave to appeal
under Article 134(1)(c) on the ground that it felt that there had not been such a full and fair
trial as ought to have been held. The Supreme Court regarded such a reason for the grant of
the certificate as unsound. The High Court had noted, that the question involved was one of
fact, and therefore in the opinion of the Supreme Court, there could not be any justification
for granting the certificate and converting the Supreme Court into a court of appeal on
question of facts. For remedying a gross miscarriage of justice or departure from a legal
procedure vitiating the whole trial, the Supreme Court would certainly interfere, but the High
Court could not arrogate that function to itself and pass on to the Supreme Court a matter
purely involving a question of fact. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found no
reason for interference. Appel was Dismissed.

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present appeal is not maintainable, as
appeals against acquittals should be used sparingly, only in cases of public importance or
severe miscarriage of justice. Here, the High Court has thoroughly reviewed and correctly
assessed the evidence, reversing the lower court’s error without any indication of injustice
requiring Supreme Court intervention. The Supreme Court’s role is not to re-evaluate facts
already settled by the High Court unless there is clear evidence of grave injustice, which is
absent here. Thus, this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.

14 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

Issue 2: Whether deceased acted under “Grave and Sudden Provocation”, which led her
to commit murder of her Husband and Child?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, to establish a defense
of sudden provocation, it is essential first to define the concept of provocation within criminal
law. In criminal jurisprudence, provocation refers to an incident or set of actions capable of
inciting a powerful emotional response in an individual, resulting in a temporary loss of self-
control. This loss of control may lead to impulsive actions, which, when used as a defense,
could reduce a charge of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However,
for an incident to qualify as provocation under law, it must meet certain stringent criteria,
which have been clarified in various judicial pronouncements.

In Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra4, the Hon'ble Court noted that for provocation to
constitute a valid defense, it must be both "grave" and "sudden," leaving no reasonable
opportunity for the accused to regain self-control. The defense of provocation applies only
when the accused’s actions arise immediately from the provocation, without time for
premeditation or reflection.

Judicial Interpretation of “Grave and Sudden” Provocation

In case of Akhtar vs. State5, court observed some elements that "The Indian law, relevant to
the present enquiry, may be stated thus:- (1) The test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is
whether a, reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in
the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-
control.

(2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and
sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to Section
300 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden
provocation for committing the offence.

4
4. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605
5
5. Akhtar vs. State AIR 1964 ALLAHABAD 262

15 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

(4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to influence of passion arising from the
provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of fine, or otherwise giving
room and scope for premeditation and calculation."

Key Elements of Provocation: The doctrine of provocation has been refined by judicial
interpretation, and from landmark cases, certain core elements have emerged:

• The Provocation Must Be Grave and Sudden: For provocation to apply, the act that
incited the accused must be intense enough to provoke an uncontrollable reaction.

• Loss of Self-Control: The provocation must deprive the accused of the ability to control
their actions, leading to an impulsive, unplanned response.

• Temporal Proximity: The loss of self-control must follow immediately from the provoking
incident, without any lapse of time that would allow the accused to cool down or plan.

• Direct Link to Provocation: The fatal act must occur during the emotional state triggered
by provocation, not after any delay or calculated planning.

Legal Requirements for Provocation Under Section 101 of the BNS, 2023

Section 101 outlines that culpable homicide is not murder if it occurs while the offender is
deprived of self-control by "grave and sudden provocation." However, this provocation must
not be self-sought, lawful action by public officials or in self-defense. Provocation must also
be determined by examining the facts of the case, including the proximity and impact of the
provoking incident.

The first exception of Section 101 of BNS, 2023 states that-

Exception 1.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power
of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident:

Provided that the provocation is not,––

16 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

(a) sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to
any person;

(b) given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of the powers of such public servant;

(c) given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Analysis of the Deceased’s Actions: Evidence of Premeditation over Provocation

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the timeline and conduct of the
deceased reveal a deliberate and calculated response, rather than a sudden and uncontrollable
impulse triggered by provocation. The last altercation between the deceased and her husband
occurred on the night of March 21, 2019, concluding around 11:00 p.m. However, the
deceased did not take any action until approximately 4:00 a.m. the following morning, after a
significant time lapse of several hours. This period allowed ample time for contemplation,
which undermines any assertion that the provocation was “sudden” and capable of inducing
an immediate loss of self-control.

In order that provocation may be pleaded in partial defence to a charge of murder for
mitigation of the offence four things are necessary ; (1) there must be provocation; (2)
provocation must be grave and sudden; (3) by reason of such grave and sudden provocation
the offender must have been deprived of the power of self- control; and (4) the death of the
person who gave provocation or of any other, by mistake or accident, must have been caused.

In case of Akhtar vs. State6, court observed some elements that "The Indian law, relevant to
the present enquiry, may be stated thus:- (1) The test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is
whether a, reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in
the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his self-
control.

6
6. Akhtar vs. State AIR 1964 ALLAHABAD 262

17 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

(2) In Windia, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and
sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to Section
300 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden
provocation for committing the offence.

(4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to influence of passion arising from the
provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of fine, or otherwise giving
room and scope for premeditation and calculation."

Simialrly, in case of Rajendra Marar & Anr. vs The State Of M.P 7 , the court also
observed that What is critical for a case to fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC is that
the provocation must not only be grave but sudden as well. It is only where the following
ingredients of Exception 1 are satisfied that an accused can claim mitigation of the offence
committed by him from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: (1) The
deceased must have given provocation to the accused.

(2) The provocation so given must have been grave.

(3) The provocation given by the deceased must have been sudden.

(4) The offender by reason of such grave and sudden provocation must have been deprived of
his power of self- control; and

(5) The offender must have killed the deceased or any other person by mistake or accident
during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control.

The Supreme Court in Arun Raj Vs. Union of India and others 8 , have held that
"provocation" is to be judged on scale of a normal man. Their Lordships further held that
external stimulus can result into loss of self-control. Such provocation and the resulting
reaction need to be measured from the surrounding circumstances.

Thus, in this the final altercation between both occurred on the night of March 21, 2019, and
the physical violence ended by 11:00 p.m. Deceased, unable to sleep, contemplated her
actions for hours before attacking Jones at 4:00 a.m. the following morning. This substantial
7
7. Rajendra Marar & Anr. vs The State Of M.P , 18 september,2024
8
8. Arun Raj Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 6 SSC 457

18 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

time gap allows for reflection and demonstrates that her actions were premeditated rather
than an impulsive reaction caused by sudden provocation as was also held in case of K. M.
Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra9 , where after Sylvia confesses to Nanavati, he calmly
drives them to the movie theatre and drops them there. After this, he went to his ship and got
the revolver on a false pretence. This clearly shows that he had sufficient time to cool down
and that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden. Nanavati had premeditated the murder
on his way. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the Court arrived
at the conclusion that the accused had developed self-control and was considering the future
of his family. After the confession of Sylvia, he had plenty of time to regain his emotional
stability and calm himself down. His actions were premeditated and purposefully calculated.
Therefore, the defence of grave and sudden provocation did not stand valid for him and the
act was considered as a premeditated murder.

In case of B.D.Khunte Vs. Union of India and ors.10 It was contended that even if the
appellant’s version about the day time incident was accepted, a long interval between the
alleged provocation by the deceased and the murderous assault by the appellant clearly
denuded the provocation of its gravity and spontaneity. A provocation like the one allegedly
given by the deceased at 1 p.m. would have sufficiently cooled down after long hours
especially when even according to the appellant he had attended to other duties in the
intervening period. The fact that the appellant and his colleagues had decided that they will in
the evening give a beating to the deceased when they assembled at the water heating point
also showed that the provocation was far from being sudden and grave enough for the
appellant to shoot the deceased down when he saw him in the evening.

Intentionality and Weapon Selection: Indicators of Calculated Harm

It is further submitted before the Hon’ble court that the deceased’s deliberate choice of
weapon—a heavy iron rod—and her targeted attacks on the heads of both Jones and her child
further suggest intentionality rather than a spontaneous reaction. These actions demonstrate a
clear intent to cause fatal harm and are inconsistent with a sudden loss of self-control. Her
selection of a lethal weapon and the specific nature of the attacks reveal a premeditated
objective, extending beyond any reasonable claim of provocation and instead pointing to a
calculated decision to inflict maximum harm.

9
09. K.M Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605.

10
10. B.D Khunte vs. Union of India, AIR 2014.

19 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 In case of Kavasjhangir Mamabuvala vs State Of Gujarat11, the court held that deliberate
choice of weapon a lathi weapon and locked her aim on the vital part of the body of the
complaint, it clearly indicate the intentionally rather than a spontaneous reaction. The accused
was convicted under offence,

Absence of “Grave” Provocation at the Moment of the Incident

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the defense of provocation also requires an
immediate incident capable of triggering an overwhelming emotional response. Here, the
final altercation between the deceased and Jones occurred hours before she acted. While the
history of abuse may have caused significant emotional distress, it does not constitute an
immediate, grave provocation at the time of the act. The concept of “grave” provocation
requires a sudden and intense incident that shocks or overwhelms, prompting an impulsive
reaction. The accumulated grievances expressed by the deceased fall short of meeting this
legal threshold, as they were not immediately preceding the fatal act

The Deceased’s Actions Against the Child: Evidence of Premeditation

It is submitted before the court that the deceased’s decision to harm her child further negates
any assertion of provocation. The child, who posed no immediate threat, did not provoke the
deceased in any way. Thus, her actions towards her child cannot reasonably be attributed to
any provocation by Jones. This act appears to reflect a more calculated mindset, possibly
motivated by retaliation or premeditated anger, which is incompatible with the defense of
provocation.

Thus, the deceased’s actions do not meet the criteria for “grave and sudden provocation” as
required under Section 101 of the BNS, 2023. The significant time lapse between the initial
altercation and the fatal act, the calculated choice of a weapon, and the targeting of both her
husband and child suggest premeditation rather than a spontaneous, uncontrollable response.
Given these factors, the defense of provocation is untenable, and the case should be treated as
premeditated murder rather than culpable homicide.

Issue 3: Whether deceased is liable for committing murder of her husband and child?

11
11. Kavasjhangir Mamabuvala vs State Of Gujarat , AIR1999

20 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

 The Concept and Legal Basis of Provocation

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the deceased is liable for
committing the murders of her husband and child, in accordance with Sections 101 and 103
of the BNS, 2023. Section 101 establishes the requisite elements of murder, while Section
103 stipulates the punishment. A detailed examination of Section 101 is necessary to affirm
the murder charge.

Section 101 of BNS, 2023 states that-

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,––

(a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or

(b) if the act by which the death is caused 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

(c) if the act by which the death is caused 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

(d) if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.

The evidence strongly aligns with these elements of murder:

A- if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or

In the early morning hours of March 22, 2019, around 4:00 a.m., the deceased took an iron
rod and entered her bedroom, where she caused the deaths of her husband and child. Her
actions demonstrate a clear, deliberate intention and premeditation to kill both individuals. As
a result, the deceased has been justly and lawfully convicted of murder under Section 101 of
the BNS, 2023. This incident unmistakably shows that the deceased acted with intent to cause
the deaths of the victims.

21 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

B- if the act by which the death is caused 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 wells
the harm is caused; or

The injury inflicted by the deceased on the husband & child's head was severe enough to be
fatal. By choosing to strike the head—a vital and vulnerable area—the deceased clearly
demonstrated an intent to cause death.In the case of Kaju Bani Vijay v. The State of
Maharashtra12, the court noted that the accused inflicted an injury to the complainant's head
using an iron rod, resulting in a lacerated wound from the vertex to the midline. Following
this incident, a crime was registered, and an investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet,
upon which the learned court framed charges against the accused.

Furthermore, in Karu Marik v. The State of Bihar13, the court stated that, regarding Clause
II of Section 300, it suffices if the accused intended to cause bodily injury that he knew was
likely to result in the death of the person harmed. Such intent can be inferred not only from
the actual consequences of the act but also from the nature of the act itself.

C- if the act by which the death is caused 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

The deceased acted with knowledge that the injuries she inflicted would be sufficient to
cause the deaths of her husband and child. She delivered the initial blow with an iron rod to a
vital area—the head—demonstrating intent to cause fatal harm. The head, being a critical part
of the body, was struck with a dangerous weapon, resulting in a deadly injury that inevitably
led to death. Therefore, this is a clear case of murder under Section 101 of the BNS, and the
accused deceased has been lawfully and correctly convicted under Section 103 of the BNS.

In the case of Virsa Singh V. The State of Punjab 14, court observed, To put it shortly, the
prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300, "3rdly" ;

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present.

Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,

12
12.Kaju Bani Vijay v. The State of Maharashtra ( Augest,2017)
13
13. Karu Marik v. The State of Bihar AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2266
14
14. Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab,1958 AIR 465

22 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended.

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and.

Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part
of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of
the offender.

Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on
the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that
there was no intention to cause death.

In the present case, all the above four elements are established and thus deceased is liable for
murder.

D- if the person committing the act by which the death is caused, 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.

If the person committing the act that results in death is aware that it is so imminently
dangerous that it will likely cause death or serious bodily harm, and proceeds without any
justification for risking such consequences, it constitutes a clear intent to harm. Thus, the use
of a dangerous weapon, such as an iron rod, directed at a vital area of both the husband and
child, highlights the deceased's malicious intent and reinforces the premeditated nature of the
crime.

Establishment of Mens Rea and Actus Reus

23 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

The appellent actions provide a clear and undeniable demonstration of both actus reus (the
physical act of committing the crime) and mens rea (the mental intent to commit the crime),
both of which are essential elements in proving the guilt of murder.

Actus Reus: Deliberate Preparation and Execution

The deceased did not stumble into this crime accidentally or in a moment of heated passion.
Rather, she exhibited a deliberate and calculated plan by bringing a murder weapon—a iron
rod. This is a critical point that establishes the physical act (actus reus) leading to the victim's
death.

Mens Rea: Premeditated Wrongful Intention

The fundamental rule that applies to criminal cases is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
as Justice Goddard stated in the case of Brend V. Wood in this case, it for the protection of
the subject’s liberty that a court remember that “unless the statute expressly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be
found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”

The deceased's mental state (mens rea), which is key in proving guilt, is evident through his
calculated decisions leading up to the murder. Thus, Appellente’s act is the clear indication of
premeditated intent. In the case of State of Maharashtra V. M.H. George 15 , the Supreme
Court emphasized that criminal liability cannot arise without the presence of mens rea.

Thus, the deceased's actions fulfill the legal requirements for murder as defined under Section
101 of the BNS, 2023. The evidence demonstrates both actus reus (the deliberate act of
causing death) and mens rea (the intent to cause death), showing that the deceased acted with
clear premeditation. By targeting vulnerable areas with a dangerous weapon, she intended to
cause fatal harm to both her husband and child, with no justification or provocation.
Consequently, the deceased's conviction under Sections 101 and 103 of the BNS, 2023, is
lawful.

PRAYER
15
15. State of Maharashtra v M.H. George 1965 SCR(1) 123

24 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)

Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the light of facts and circumstances
of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent prays
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following:

1. That the present appeal shall not be maintainable.

2. That upheld the decision of High Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is most respectfully prayed and humbly submitted.

(Signed)

Date: Counsel for Respondent

Place:

25 (WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT)