Memorial For Appellant

IN THE HONOURABLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTCHANDIGARH

Memorial Filed On Behalf Of the Appellant

Criminal Appeal no. : /2015

IN THE MATTER OFAMAR SINGH APPELLANTVERSUSSTATERESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF CASE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTIONS 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant

RAYAT AND BAHRA COLLEGE OF LAW, SAHAURAN, MOHALI

Table of ContentsAbbreviationIIIList of authoritiesIVStatement of JurisdicitionVIStatement of FactsVIIIssuesVIIIWhether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or notVIIIWhether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or notVIIISummary of ArgumentsIXWhether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or notIXWhether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or notIXArguments11.Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be taken or not12.Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not.4Prayer9

Abbreviation A.I.R. All India Reporter A.P. Andhra Pradesh All. Allahabad Anr. Another Bom. Bombay CCC Criminal Court Cases Cri. Criminal Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure Ed. Edition Guj. Gujarat H.C High Court Honble Honourable I.P.C Indian Penal Code ILR Indian Law Reporter Kant. Karnataka Ker. Kerala Misc. Miscellaneous N .C.T National Capital Territory Ors. Others P&H Punjab and HaryanaR.C.R Recent Criminal Reporter SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Cases SCR Supreme Court Reporter Sec. Section U.P. Uttar Pradesh UOI Union of India v. Versus

List of authorities

Statutory Compilations1) Indian Evidence Act, 18722) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733) The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Books1) H.S Gour, Penal Law of India (Law Publishers Allahabad, 2006)2) K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 5th Edition, 20083) P S A Pillai, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexis Butterwords New Delhi, 2007)4) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2008)5) R.V. KELKARS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 5th Edition 2012

Dictionaries1) Blacks law dictionary, (11th Ed.1999)2) Oxford English Dictionary OUP 3) P. Ramanatha Aiyars The Law Lexicon, The Encyclopedic Law, (2nd Ed, reprint 2009)

Websites1) www.manupatra.com2) www.indiankanoon.org

TABLE OF CASESHussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 337Anjus Dundung vs State of Jharkhand 2004(4) crimes 136 (SC)6Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 14Bimal Indwar v. State of Assam, 1982 Cr. L. J. 18048Brend v. Wood, (1946) 110 JP 317 (3185Chandrabhan Srivastav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 M.P.L.J7Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat 1964 AIR 15635Deepak C. Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (2) Apex Cri 552 (S.C.).8Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh1974 Cr LJ 1249.6Dwarka Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 2044Erabhadhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Crimes 7847Gambir v.State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 S.C.C 351: A.I.R 1982 S.C 1157.7Govinda Reddy, 1960 S.C. 29.7Gurmail Singh v State of Punjab8Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 S.C.343.7Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 972Hussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 33.7Pawan Mandal v. State of Punjab.7Jayraraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 15196Kashi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh8Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 7536Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R 2000 S.C.3649.6Kusum Ankama Rao v.State of A.P, A.I.R 2008 S.C. 2819.7Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh3Nga Po Nayan v.Emperor, A.I.R 1937 Rang8Nikunja Roy v. State, 1992 (Cal.) Cr.L.R. 366;7Pawan Mandal v. State of Punjab7Pema Duptar v.State, 1981 Cr. L. J. 276.8Prakash Bicholkar v. State, 1981 Cr.L.J. 440 at p. 441 (Goa).7Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 Cr. L. J 21906Ram Nand v.State of H.P, A.I.R 1981 S.C. 738.7Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 512Sanjeev v. State of Haryana8Sharda Birchand v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1984 S.C.16827Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 489 (492-93)6, 8Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras4Shiwaji Saherbrao Bode v.State of Maharashtra 1973 CAR 410 S.C.8Srinivas Mall v. Emperor, 49 Bom LR 688 = (AIR 1947 PC 135)5State of Karnataka vs. Satish3

Statement of Jurisdicition

The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for a Criminal Appeal filed before this Honble Court. The Appellant have approached the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section-374(2), which states as follows:Appeals from convictions.(1)xxx..(2)Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven yearhas been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.(3)..xxxxx

Statement of Facts

That a boy , Praveen aged 15 years was run over by bus in the middle of hill road and died on the spot That According to the police investigations passengers in the bus alarmed the driver and cautioned him to stop as they had seen school children crossing road in que. That Bus ran over the student on his head and could be stopped only 15 to 20 feet of spot of occurrence That Investigating officer charged him with section 302 IPC and accused driver pleaded defence of accident under Section 80 IPC That The court of session found no intention but held that the accused acted with knowledge and made him liable under section 300(4) murder and sentenced to life imprisonment That Now the accused have filed appealed in this Honble high Court

Issues

Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not

Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not

Summary of Arguments

Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be given or not That it is submitted before the Honble Court that the present matter of appellant comes under the general exception as laid down under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code. The counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the story as laid down by them in the trial done in trial court and it will be grave injustice to convict innocent person and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or notThat it is submitted that the accused cannot be convicted under Section- 300(4) of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention regarding this is that the knowledge under section 300(4) involves the Criminal knowledge of the accused and not the general knowledge. The Honble SC has on various occasion have clarified and stated that the knowledge under section 300(4) involved is criminal knowledge and in the present matter Criminal Knowledge as well as Criminal Intention both were absent hence accused cannot be convicted with the charge of murder.

Memorial For Appellant

Rayat & Bahra College of LawPage 6

Arguments

1. Whether defence under section 80 Indian Penal Code be taken or not 1.1. That it is submitted before the Honble Court that the present matter of appellant comes under the general exception as laid down under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code. The counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the story as laid down by them in the trial done in trial court and it will be grave injustice to convict innocent person and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.1.2. That section 80 IPC states as follows:Accident in doing a lawful act.Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution1.3. That the accidents have always been recognized as a valid defence to criminal liability provided certain other conditions are also satisfied. First the act under question should be without any criminal intention or knowledge. Secondly the accident ,must have occurred while doing of a lawful act in a lawful; manner by lawful means. Thirdly the lawful act should have been done with proper care and caution if these three criteria are satisfied, then an act done by accident and misfortune will not be an offence. That as laid down by Honble Supreme Court in various judgments that it is necessary that the act was done without any criminal intention and knowledge. It must be without mens rea or guilty mind.1.4. That Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, states:"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."That the Honble Allahabad High Court observed that for the manner in which the burden may be discharged should be not beyond reasonable doubt but it should be either by proof through preponderance of probabilities or by creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State AIR 1970 All 51]

1.5. That where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That, no doubt, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but that is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls under an Exception. Where an accused person is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged if the accused person succeeds 'in proving a preponderance of probability[footnoteRef:2] [2: Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97; V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762]

1.6. That when the accused raises the plea contained in Sections 80 and 84, I.P.C. what he contends is that he did not have the criminal intention or knowledge contemplated by the definition of the "offence". Criminal intention or knowledge is a material ingredient of Section 80 the other ingredients being that the act should be lawful and was done in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. The burden of proof on the prosecution to establish its case rests from the beginning to the end of the trial and it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea. The burden placed on the accused is not so onerous as on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in determining whether the accused has been successful in discharging the onus, the Court shall look into the preponderance of probabilities in the same manner as in a civil proceeding. In other words, the Court shall have to see whether a prudent man would, in the circumstances of the case, act on the supposition that the case falls within the exception or proviso as pleaded by the accused.1.7. That in the present matter, the prosecution story that the driver was alarmed of the enormous speed of the bus by the passengers does not itself proves that the bus was being driven on a high speed. It is a mere perception of some passengers according to whom the speed of bus was high. But it is submitted before this Honble court that the bus was being driven within the speed limits allowed on the hill road and thus the act of the appellant was a lawful act which was being done in lawful mean as the appellant was well within the speed limits of the area. It was explained in State of Karnataka vs. Satish[footnoteRef:3] by the bench that Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. [3: 1999 ACJ, 1378 (1998), SCC 493]

1.8. That where there were discrepancies and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses as in Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the Honble SC held that Reasonable allowance can be made for such discrepancies. But when such discrepancies make the foundation of prosecution case shaky, Court has to take strict note thereof.[footnoteRef:4] In the present matter, there are lots of contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The fact on record as submitted by the investigators states that there was a que of students crossing the road but how can a prudent and rationale person can think of that a bus which ran over a student out of that que didnt even injured any other student of that que. Thus the prosecution story is totally vague and the statements of the witnesses are not admissible at all. It is further submitted that there was neither any pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing nor any intimation that the road ahead is available for the pedestrians. The said student suddenly jumped on the road without any precautions and the teacher accompanying the students for their safeguard have narrated this story to the investigator on the basis of which the whole conviction is made [4: 2014(3) Law herald (SC) 2160]

1.9. That the SC held that the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.[footnoteRef:5] unless an accused person is given the benefit of reasonable doubt on an exception, there will be miscarriage of justice [5: Dwarka Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 204]

1.10. That it is submitted that the driver drove the bus with due care and caution, and d there was a lack of duty on the part of the teachers who should have acted cautiously while taking students to the busy roads. The driver as soon saw the student applied the brakes of bus but a prudent man has knowledge that a bus cannot be stopped at a moment which caused this accident. Thus the appellant should be given the benefit of the defence under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code as all the ingredients of the said section are fulfilled and it would be a grave miscarriage of justice if the order of conviction will not be set aside. 2. Whether the conviction of accused under 300(4) should be set aside or not.2.1. That it is submitted that the accused cannot be convicted under Section- 300(4) of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention regarding this is that the knowledge under section 300(4) involves the Criminal knowledge of the accused and not the general knowledge. The Honble SC has on various occasion have clarified and stated that the knowledge under section 300(4) involved is criminal knowledge and in the present matter Criminal Knowledge as well as Criminal Intention both were absent hence accused cannot be convicted with the charge of murder.2.2. That in Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras[footnoteRef:6], also the Supreme Court referred to these rules. It held that, in construing the section of an Act and determining its true scope, "it is permissible to have regard to all such factors as can legitimately be taken into account in ascertaining the intention of the legislature, such as history of the statute, the reason which led to its being passed, the mischief which it intended to suppress and the remedy provided by the Statute for curing the mischief." If upon the evidence adduced in the case whether by the prosecution or by the accused a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence including mens rea of the accused he would be entitled to be acquitted."[footnoteRef:7] [6: AIR 1967 SC 986] [7: Bhikari v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1]

2.3. That it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution[footnoteRef:8].The offence of murder is defined in Section 300, I.P.C. Every homicide is not murder. It is only culpable homicide which can amount to murder. [8: Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker vs State Of Gujarat 1964 AIR 1563]

2.4. That the word 'culpable' means criminal or blame-worthy. Consequently, the intention or knowledge contemplated by Section 300, I.P.C. must be a criminal or guilty one. Where it appears that the intention or knowledge is not criminal or illegal, the causing of death cannot be said to be culpable and it shall not be 'culpable homicide', that is, murder. In the circumstances, it must be held that the intention or knowledge contemplated by Section 300, I.P.C. is a criminal or guilty intention knowledge, and not mere intention or knowledge. To make this point more clear it must be mentioned that it is a well established rule that "unless the statute, either clearly 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 got a guilty mind. Such observations made an Brend v. Wood, (1946) 110 JP 317 (318) were quoted with approval by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Srinivas Mall v. Emperor, 49 Bom LR 688 = (AIR 1947 PC 135). Consequently, the ingredients of the offence under Section 300, I.P.C. are the doing of an act by which the death is caused, and the doing of the act with the intention, that is, criminal intention to cause death. Where the accused seeks the benefit of the General Exceptions contained in Sections 80 and 84, I.P.C., what he implies to mean is that he did not have the guilty intention at the time he caused the death.2.5. That the defence plea shall be looked into whether the accused has succeeded to rebut the presumption, that is to disprove the absence of the circumstances contemplated by the above sections. Once the accused succeeds in establishing his plea, he would deserve acquittal on account of there being no guilty intention; it is a different thing that he may be liable to conviction of the lesser offence; but if the accused is not successful in disproving the absence of circumstances, the Court of law shall still have to see whether the ingredient of criminal intention, that is, mens rea has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is then that a reasonable doubt created in the mind of the Court as to the defence plea shall lead to the inference that the guilty intention has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and on this ground the guilt of the accused as to the main offence shall be deemed not to have been established beyond doubt and he shall be acquitted.2.6. That intention or the mental element in committing the crime is an essential ingredient of culpable homicide. While intention is a very important element in all crimes , it becomes crucial in the offence of culpable homicide , because it is the degree of intention of the accused , which determines the degree of crime . In other words it is the mental element of the accused alone, which is material to decide whether a particular act is culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.[footnoteRef:9] Whether there is inetention or not is a question of the fact[footnoteRef:10]. And it is submitted before the Honble Court that the facts stated itself speaks that there was no such intention on the part of the driver to kill any person and niether there was any criminal knowledge. [9: Jayraraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519] [10: Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 753]

The Guilt of the Accused is not proved Beyond Doubt2.7. That where the evidence produced by prosecution proves the case is beyond reasonable doubt it is not a case where benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.[footnoteRef:11]The golden rule stating the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.[footnoteRef:12] Doubts would be reasonable when they are free from a seat for abstract speculation.[footnoteRef:13] That the offence in this case is substantially proved by circumstantial evidence, which is proved link after link, forged firmly by a credible testimony forming a strong chain of guilt binding the accused.[footnoteRef:14] [11: Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 Cr. L. J 2190; Kuldeep v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R 2000 S.C.3649.] [12: Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 489 (492-93)] [13: Glanville Williams, The Mathematics of Proof-II": Cri Law Review, Sweet and Maxwell, p. 340 (342), 1979.] [14: Dharam Das Wadhwani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1974 Cr LJ 1249.]

2.8. The basic requirement in cases of circumstantial evidence is that the chain of circumstances must be complete; in a case of any missing link no basis for conviction can be formed[footnoteRef:15]. In the present matter, the circumstantial evidences do not form proper chain of evidence and there are contradictions in the story of prosecution and the consequences evolved out of the incident. [15: Anjus Dundung vs State of Jharkhand 2004(4) crimes 136 (SC)]

The Circumstantial Evidence do proves the Guilt of the Accused2.9. That the age old principle as already explained in the landmark judgment of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh[footnoteRef:16]was recently reiterated in Pawan Mandal v. State of Punjab.[footnoteRef:17] It was stated that firstly, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established. [footnoteRef:18] Secondly, the facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except accused is guilty.[footnoteRef:19] Thirdly, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.[footnoteRef:20] Fourthly, they should exclude every hypothesis except the one to be proved[footnoteRef:21] and lastly, there must be a chain of evidence[footnoteRef:22] so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.[footnoteRef:23] Thus, the circumstantial evidence and facts of the case taken in totality[footnoteRef:24] admit the guilt of the accused.[footnoteRef:25] [16: AIR 1952 S.C.343.] [17: 2010 (1) RCR (Cri) 274 (P&H) (DB).] [18: Sharda Birchand v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R 1984 S.C.1682; Ved Prakash @ Bhagwan Dia v State of Haryana, 2006 (3) RCR (Cri).] [19: Prakash Bicholkar v. State, 1981 Cr.L.J. 440 at p. 441 (Goa).] [20: Nikunja Roy v. State, 1992 (Cal.) Cr.L.R. 366; Ram Nand v.State of H.P, A.I.R 1981 S.C. 738.] [21: Gambir v.State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 S.C.C 351: A.I.R 1982 S.C 1157.] [22: Chandrabhan Srivastav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 M.P.L.J. 340 at p. 344.] [23: Kusum Ankama Rao v.State of A.P, A.I.R 2008 S.C. 2819.] [24: Ram Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 Cr.L.J. 298; Erabhadhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983 (1) Crimes 784, Hussain Ali v. State of Assam, 1993 92) Gau. L.R. 33.] [25: Govinda Reddy, 1960 S.C. 29.]

2.10. That in the present matter all the circumstantial evidences and statements of witnesses do not corroborates the accusation of prosecution. The matter of speed of bus should be dealt by the expert opinion and the role of precautions and caution taken up by the teachers when the students were crossing the road , from the place where there was no pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing should be examined properly and with strict adherence to the. These chains of evidence do not prove the hypothesis of guilt, moreover, beyond reasonable doubt and hence making accused guilty on the charges of murder will result in grave miscarriage of justiceThe Evidentiary value of Circumstantial Evidence Proves the Hypothesis of Guilt.2.11. That these records are not sufficient to prove the hypothesis of the guilt. Therefore, the evidence of witness is not sufficient to convict[footnoteRef:26] the accused since their guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.[footnoteRef:27] In the case of Deepak C. Patil v. State of Maharashtra[footnoteRef:28], it was declared that in a case of circumstantial evidence there may be no direct evidence to prove the manner of assault or actual participation of an accused in assault on the deceased resulting in his death but if the circumstantial evidence is conclusive, a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence may be recorded. [footnoteRef:29] in the presnt matter the evidences are not conclusive , they are of subjective nature and based on mere perception of the eye witnesses. [26: Vaidivelu Thelvar v.State of Madras, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 614 at p. 619, 620; Pema Duptar v.State, 1981 Cr. L. J. 276.] [27: Nga Po Nayan v.Emperor, A.I.R 1937 Rang; Shiwaji Saherbrao Bode v.State of Maharashtra 1973 CAR 410 S.C.] [28: Deepak C. Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (2) Apex Cri 552 (S.C.).] [29: Bimal Indwar v. State of Assam, 1982 Cr. L. J. 1804 at p. 1805, 1806 (Gau).]

2.12. That a guilty intention or knowledge is thus essential to the offence under this section. That the intention is always a question of fact and the fact that the accused did not intend to cause the injury he did, may be a mitigating factor. In Gurmail Singh v State of Punjab[footnoteRef:30] and Kashi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh[footnoteRef:31] where the Conviction was done under 302, the Honble court converted the conviction from 302 to 304, stating that there was no evidence to show that the accused intended to cause the injury he inflicted. [30: AIR 1982 SC 1466] [31: AIR 2001 SC 2002]

2.13. That in Sanjeev v. State of Haryana [footnoteRef:32]It is only either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable homicide - In order to read either intention or knowledge, the courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused. [32: 2015 STPL(Web) 133 SC]

Prayer

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is humbly prayed before the Honble Court to adjudge and declare:-

a. That impugned order of session court be set asideb. That the appellant be acquitted.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/-(Counsel for the Appellant)