START

 The counsel seeks permission to approach the dice

 The counsel seeks permission to Begin (proceed with the case) – Much obliged
 Greetings of the day to the Hon’ble bench.

 The counsel seeks permission to Address the Hon’ble Bench collectively as Your
Honor and individually as Your Lordship and Your Ladyship.

 Your lordship, Me and my co-counsel from TC – 48 will be representing respondent

in the said case of vindhiya Pradesh vs sagar&ors.
 {With due permission of the bench the counsel would like to state the jurisdiction
…..much obliged
 The appellant in the present case has approached the Hon’ble supreme court of hindia
to initiate the present appeal under article 136 of hindia constitution the appellant
most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction to the Hon’ble court] nahi
bolna hai emergency
 I speaker 1 - would be dealing with issue 1 and 2 further, my co-counsel would be
dealing with issue 3.
 The counsel seeks permission to proceed with fact of the case.
 If your lordships are well versed with the facts of the case, the counsel for the
respondent seeks permission to proceed with the first issue.
 I would like to state the facts of the case.

Summary of Facts for Oral Arguments (Respondent Side):

May it please the Hon’ble Court:

The facts of this case revolve around a tragic misunderstanding driven by local superstitions
and fear. Sagar Bhai, the Respondent, along with Aryan Mehta and others, visited an
abandoned school under the belief that the area was haunted by ghosts. This belief, which
was deeply ingrained in local culture, influenced their actions that night. Sagar Bhai, acting
on Uday Shetty’s directive, genuinely believed that they were in imminent danger from
supernatural entities.

When they spotted figures in the distance, Sagar, convinced that they were ghosts, acted in a
state of fear and confusion. He attacked what he thought were apparitions with a khukuri,
without any intention to harm actual human beings. His belief was reinforced by the group’s
shared fear of the supernatural. Aryan Mehta also followed suit, under the same mistaken
belief. Lucky, one of the companions, attempted to warn them that the figures were not
ghosts, but in the panic and confusion, Sagar Bhai continued the attack, injuring several
individuals and tragically leading to the death of Ritu.

The Respondent submits that Sagar Bhai’s actions were not driven by malice or criminal
intent, but were the result of a bona fide mistake of fact under Section 79 of the IPC. He
genuinely believed he was acting in self-defense against a perceived supernatural threat, and
there was no mens rea involved in the unfortunate incident. Therefore, he should be acquitted
of liability under Sections 302, 326, and 324 of the IPC.

Respondent arguments issue 1

Hon’ble Judges,

It is respectfully submitted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The argument is four- fold.

Lack of Substantial Question of Law:

o The petitioner has failed to raise any substantial question of law warranting
this Hon’ble Court’s interference. The Supreme Court’s extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 136 is invoked only when significant legal principles
or constitutional matters need clarification. In Pritam Singh v. State (AIR 1950
SC 169), it was held that the Court's discretion should be exercised sparingly
and only in cases where there are substantial legal issues. The current case
involves well-settled principles of criminal liability, including juvenile
responsibility and abetment, which have been correctly interpreted by the
lower courts(TC-_48_MEMORIAL_ON_THE_…).
2. No Miscarriage of Justice:
o The petitioner’s claim lacks any grounds of a gross miscarriage of justice. In
the present case, the High Court of Vindhya Pradesh has meticulously
evaluated all the evidence and applied legal principles correctly. As held in
Daryao v. State of U.P. (AIR 1962 SC 1457), the Supreme Court’s role is not
to review factual determinations made by lower courts unless there is a
manifest error of law (TC-_48_MEMORIAL_ON_THE_…). The petitioner is
merely seeking a reevaluation of the facts, which is not the purpose of this
Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136.
3. Article 136 Cannot Serve as a Routine Appeal Mechanism:
 o Article 136 is not an alternative route for routine appeals. This Hon’ble Court
has previously ruled, in Mathai @ Joby v. George (2010) 4 SCC 358, that it
will not entertain SLPs that only seek a reassessment of evidence without any
substantial question of law (TC-_48_MEMORIAL_ON_THE_…). The
petitioner’s appeal is based on factual discrepancies that have already been
settled by the High Court, with no compelling legal questions or errors that
require this Court’s intervention.
4. The High Court’s Decision is Sound and Justified:
o The High Court has applied the law properly, especially regarding the
defenses under Sections 76 and 79 IPC (Mistake of Fact and Good Faith) and
vicarious liability. The acquittal of the respondents was rightly based on the
absence of criminal intent and the existence of genuine mistake of fact,
supported by State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (AIR 1959 Ori 161)(TC-
_48_MEMORIAL_ON_THE_…).

The SLP is an attempt to relitigate matters that have already been carefully adjudicated by the
lower courts. The petitioner has not demonstrated any substantial question of law, manifest
error, or miscarriage of justice that would warrant this Court’s extraordinary intervention
under Article 136. Therefore, we humbly request this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the SLP as
not maintainable.

Dusra
It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The argument is four fold.

Absence of Substantial Questions of Law:

o The petitioner has failed to raise any substantial question of law that requires
this Hon'ble Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court's
role is not to re-evaluate facts or serve as a regular appellate forum. In Mathai
@ Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358, this Hon'ble Court emphasized that
Article 136 should not be invoked for mere re-appreciation of evidence unless
there is a grave error of law or miscarriage of justice
 (TP_2010_4_scc_358_368_2…). The case at hand involves well-settled legal
principles regarding criminal intent and the defense of mistake of fact, which
do not necessitate re-interpretation by the apex court.
2. No Miscarriage of Justice or Manifest Error:
o There has been no miscarriage of justice that would justify the interference of
this Hon'ble Court. The High Court of Vindhya Pradesh has appropriately
evaluated the facts and evidence, delivering a sound judgment. The court
carefully applied the provisions of law, including Sections 79 IPC (Mistake of
Fact in Good Faith), and concluded that the accused acted without criminal
intent. In State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, AIR 1960 Ori 161, it was
held that when an act is done under a genuine mistaken belief, the accused is
entitled to acquittal under Section 79 IPC(J_1959_SCC_OnLine_Ori_2…).
Similarly, the High Court correctly applied these principles, and there is no
manifest error that requires this Court's interference.
3. Petitioner is Seeking Factual Reassessment:
o The petitioners are primarily seeking a reassessment of factual determinations,
not a resolution of substantial legal issues. This Hon’ble Court in Pritam
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 169, held that Article 136 is not
intended to serve as a mechanism for routine appeals, but should be reserved
for cases that involve significant legal principles or constitutional matters
(J_1959_SCC_OnLine_Ori_2…). The High Court has carefully examined the
evidence, and the petitioner has failed to point out any legal errors that would
justify intervention.
4. Well-Settled Principles Already Applied:
o The defenses of mistake of fact under Section 79 and the standards for
vicarious liability have been correctly interpreted by the High Court. In cases
such as Ram Bahadur Thapa and Waryam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Lah
554, the courts have consistently held that individuals acting under genuine
mistakes of fact, particularly when influenced by strong cultural beliefs, are
entitled to protection under Section 79(J_1959_SCC_OnLine_Ori_2…). The
High Court’s judgment aligns with these well-settled legal precedents.

In light of the aforementioned points, the SLP lacks merit as it does not raise substantial legal
questions or indicate any miscarriage of justice. The petitioner’s request for reappraisal of
facts does not warrant the exercise of this Hon'ble Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court should dismiss the SLP as not
maintainable.

IF your Lordships are satisfied with the arguments, the counsel

seeks permission to move on to the next issue.

Issue 2
Whether Sagar is liable under Sections §302, §326, and §324 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) despite his defense of acting under a mistake of fact in good faith?

May it please the Hon’ble Court:

The Respondents humbly submit that Sagar should not be held liable under Sections 302,
326, and 324 of the IPC due to his genuine belief that he was acting against supernatural
beings, which entitles him to protection under Section 79 of the IPC. This defense is solidly
based on three key aspects: absence of mens rea, the act done under a bona fide mistake of
fact, and the mistaken exercise of self-defense.

1. Absence of Mens Rea

Sagar acted without the criminal intent required for liability under the charged offenses. He
genuinely believed that the victims were ghosts and posed an immediate threat to him and his
companions. Under Indian criminal law, mens rea, or a guilty mind, is a fundamental element
for imposing liability under Sections 302, 326, and 324 of the IPC.

 In the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959 AIR 144), the Hon’ble
Court held that an individual acting under a mistaken belief of fact, without any
criminal intent, is entitled to protection under Section 79. Sagar’s actions were not
driven by malice or an intention to kill but were a response to what he believed to be a
supernatural threat.
 The absence of mens rea negates his criminal liability under the aforementioned
sections. His actions were based on fear and superstition, not any desire to harm
human beings.

2. Act Done Under a Bona Fide Mistake of Fact

Sagar Bhai’s actions fall squarely within the protection offered by Section 79 of the IPC,
which excuses a person from liability when they act under a bona fide mistake of fact in good
faith.

 In Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed (ILR 31 Bom 293), the court stated that the
standard of care must be judged according to the capacity and intelligence of the
person acting. Sagar Bhai’s belief in ghosts and his reaction were heavily influenced
by local superstitions and the instructions of his employer. His actions were not
unreasonable given his state of mind and the context in which he found himself.
 Furthermore, in Waryam Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1926 Lah 554), the court held that
when a person genuinely believes they are confronting a supernatural entity and acts
accordingly, their actions can be excused under Section 79. Sagar’s mistaken belief in
ghosts, confirmed by the environment and his companions, justifies his conduct under
the law.

3. Right to Self-Defense

Sagar’s actions were driven by a mistaken but genuine belief that he was defending himself
and others from imminent danger posed by supernatural beings. Section 96 of the IPC
provides for the right to self-defense, allowing individuals to act in defense of themselves or
others when facing an immediate threat.

 In Bonda Kui v. Emperor (AIR 1943 Pat 64), the court allowed the defense of mistake
of fact where the assailant genuinely believed he was confronting a ghost and acted in
self-defense. Sagar’s belief that the victims were ghosts prompted him to react
defensively. Although mistaken, the perception of danger influenced his actions,
which were aimed at protecting himself and his group from what he thought was an
immediate threat.

Given the absence of mens rea, the bona fide mistake of fact, and the right to self-defense,
Sagar Bhai is entitled to the protections of Section 79 IPC and should not be held liable under
Sections 302, 326, and 324. His actions, though tragic, were the result of fear and confusion,
not criminal intent. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that he be acquitted of the charges.