Agruments Advanced
Uploaded by
Best Hindi Poetry And Hindi SongsAgruments Advanced
Uploaded by
Best Hindi Poetry And Hindi SongsAbsolutely!
Here’s how we can strengthen the respondent's case (State of India) in the moot proposition
—by tightening legal reasoning, emphasizing relevant precedents, and reinforcing the argument of
*intentional and cold-blooded murder*.
---
## 🔍 *Enhanced Arguments on Behalf of Respondent*
### **I. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is justified and must be upheld**
- **Mens rea (criminal intent)** is clearly established by the deliberate selection of a lethal weapon
(iron rod) and targeting of a **defenseless, sleeping victim**.
- The killing was not an act of spontaneous rage but of **calculated retaliation**, pointing to
**premeditation**.
- The accused had time to cool down and retreat but chose instead to **escalate violence**, shifting the
act outside Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC.
- ⚖️**Case Law Strengthened:**
- *State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya* (1976) – Firmly reaffirms that where intent to cause death is
evident, the act qualifies as murder under Section 302.
- *Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P.* (2009) – Held that use of a deadly weapon with repeated blows on vital
body parts shows intent to kill.
---
### **II. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC is not applicable**
- The **essence of Exception 1** lies in "loss of self-control due to *sudden and grave provocation*."
- Stephanie had hours between the provocation and the killing, during which she made **conscious
decisions** rather than reacting impulsively.
- The **doctrine of cooling-off** applies—*any action taken after regaining composure and mental
clarity cannot be covered under Exception 1*.
- ⚖️**Case Law Strengthened:**
- *K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra* (1962) – Exception 1 doesn't apply if the accused had time to
cool off, even if the initial provocation was grave.
- *Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory* (1989) – Delay between provocation and act negates the
element of suddenness.
---
### **III. The killings were not only intentional, but also devoid of justification**
- Striking a **helpless sleeping person** multiple times exhibits **brutality and determination** to
extinguish life, not to defend oneself.
- Stephanie showed **mental clarity post-crime** by:
- Reporting the incident herself,
- Not fleeing the scene,
- Giving a coherent statement—all indicating **absence of mental derangement or sudden loss of
control**.
- ⚖️*Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab* (1958): When a bodily injury is both intentional and sufficient to
cause death, Section 302 IPC squarely applies.
---
### **IV. The murder of the child is an aggravated and independent act**
- The child was **vulnerable, dependent, and posed no threat**. No possible legal or moral justification
exists.
- The act was not only intentional, but **inhumane and in total disregard of law and conscience**.
- This second killing shows **clear duplicity of intention**—not protection, but extermination.
- ⚖️*Amrit Bhushan Gupta v. Union of India* (1977): Killing an innocent child is among the most heinous
offenses and deserves no leniency.
---
### ✅ *Supplementary Strengthening Points*
1. **Post-crime behavior** (confession, lack of resistance) shows **mental awareness**, not shock or
confusion.
2. **Absence of prior complaint or police report** weakens the defense of long-standing abuse leading
to sudden provocation.
3. **Psychiatric evaluations (if available)** did not suggest insanity or reduced capacity.
