Case Concerning: MURDER under Section 300,302 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

In the matter of:

State ………………………………………..Prosecution

v.

Mrs. X …………………………………………Accused

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED TO: MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF:

Ms. Sujata Bali, Prosecution
Lecturer,U.I.L.S,
Avalodge,Chaura Maidan,
Shimla-4

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF:

Prosecution
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. Particulars Page no.

1 Index of Authorities
2 Statement of Jurisdiction
3 Statement of Facts
4 Questions presented
5 Summary of Arguments
6 Written submissions
7 Prayer

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED:

1.Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, ‘Indian Penal Code’,Central Law Publications.

2.S.N. Mishra, ‘Indian Penal Code’,Eastern Law Publications.

3. K.D.Gaur, ‘The Indian Penal Code’,Universal Law Publications Co.

4.Hari Singh Gaur, ‘The Indian Penal Code’, Universal Law Publication.

CASE LAWS:

1. Supreme Court in state (Delhi administration) v. Laxman Kumar1986 CR. L.J.

155(S.C.)

2. Kalegura Padma Rao v/s State of A.P. Air 2007 SC 1299

3. Major Singh v State of Punjab (2006) 10 SCC 499

4. Gulam Murhay-ud-Din (1921)22 CR L.J. 658

5. Shivanarayan Kabra v State of Madras 1976 Cr.L.J. 946

6 .S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi in Benjamin v/s State, AIR 2008 SC 1383

7. Mancini v Director of Public Prosecution(1941) All Er 272(hl).

8. Goddardd chief justice in R v duffy (1949) 1 All Er 932

9. Virsa Singh V/s state of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 (467)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
present case under Section 28 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That Mr. X and Mrs. X were travelling by a bus to visit their native place in

Kangra.

2. That near the Ghagas the bus went out of control and fell in to the Nallah , 100

feet below.

3. That Mr. X suffered serious injuries and was brought to IGMC Shimla, from

where he was referred to P.G.I, Chandigarh.

4. That Mr. X had suffered serious head injuries and he went into coma

5. That Mrs. X who was house wife was not able to make both ends meet

6. That she was unable to incur the expenditure of the hospital and of her two

children all the deposits of the family were fast depleting and she prayed to the

government to give her financial aid to save her husband but not help came.

7. That meanwhile doctor at P.G.I, Chandigarh were unsure of the recovery of Mr. X

had been in the hospital for last 7 months.

8. That the hospital administration served a notice to Mrs. X to clear all the dues or

otherwise they would take strict action.

9. That Mrs. X sold all the family jewelry and their house to make the payment to

the hospital.
10. That she rented a room for herself and her children and about Rs 30.000/per

month needed to be paid to the hospital for the special ward where Mr. X was

kept. As it was not possible to keep him in general ward considering his condition.

11. That two year passed and still Mr. X showed no improvement and the cost of

living was rising.

12. That the money from sale of their house and jewelry was finished.

13. That the school where her children were studying called her to submit the fees or

the children would be thrown out from the school.

14. That the life was becoming hell for Mr. X and thoughts of committing suicide

along with her children crossed her mind many times.

15. That one day when she went to visit her husband in the hospital and she removed

the oxygen pipe of the ventilator.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A. Whether Mrs. X accused, committed murder by intentionally causing the

death of Mr. X and thereby committed an offence under section 302.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. Whether Mrs. X accused, committed murder by intentionally causing the

death of Mr. X and thereby committed an offence under section 302.

Section 300 of Indian penal code 1860: defines murder. It provides culpable

homicide is murder:

i. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of

causing death, or

ii. If it 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

iii. If it 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

iv. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous

that it must, in all possibility, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely

to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the

causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
 A. Whether Mrs. X accused, committed murder by intentionally causing the

death of Mr. X and thereby committed an offence under section 302.

Supreme Court in state (Delhi administration) v. Laxman Kumar.1

It was held that an offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of

culpable homicide. Murder includes culpable homicide.

Section 299. defines culpable homicide it provides that whoever causes death by doing

an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily

injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to

cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide

2
Hon’ble supreme court in Kalegura Padma Rao v/s State of A.P. reiterated the

essentials of culpable homicide

I. Causing the death of a human being.

II. By doing an act.

III. Act must have been, done with the intention of causing death.

According to Section 46 of Indian penal code death connotes “the death of human

being unless the contrary appears from the context”

In the present case Mr. X had suffered head injuries and he went in to coma and was

suffering from the above mentioned diseases for the last 2 years. On the day of

occurrence of crime accused went to visit her husband in the hospital where she removed

the oxygen pipe of the ventilator, as a result, the husband died there and then. It is to be

stated that the dead body of Mr. X was subjected to the postmortem examination. A team

1
1986 CR. L.J. 155(S.C.)
2
Air 2007 sc 1299
of doctors was constituted for the purpose of the postmortem examination. From perusal

of the postmortem report it appears that Mr.X died of suffocation. In these circumstances

the nature of his death was homicidal. Medical evidence,that is the post mortem report is

corroborating the circumstantial evidence which says that MR. X died due to

suffocation.All that section requires is that there should be an intention to cause death or

knowledge that death is likely to be the result.

Culpable homicide is a murder where the party inflicting the injury does it either with

intention that it should cause death or with knowledge it may do so.3

In the present case wife had the knowledge that here husband had suffered serious head

injuries and he went into the coma and there were no sign of recovery.

Mr.X had been in the hospital for last two years.

Being aware of the state of illness of her husband she removed the oxygen pipe

from the ventilator and caused the death of her own husband. From the above fact it is

crystal clear that Mrs. X intended to end the life of her husband.

In Major Singh v State of Punjab (2006) 10 SCC 499 It was held by the apex court

that “Motive is material where case is based on circumstantial evidence.”

Her motive behind the said act was nothing but to cause the death of her husband. A man

of ordinary prudence is aware of the fact that if the oxygen pipe of the ventilator is

removed, a person who is in coma for the last two years is bound to die.

The literal meaning of intention is “the expectation of consequence in question”

The apex court in AIR 1958 SC 672 at pg.675 that “man’s intention must in generality of

cases be gathered only from his acts.”

3
Gulam Murhay-ud-Din (1921)22 CR L.J. 658
Lord Ellenburg in Dixon 4said that “when a man is charged with doing an act of which

the probable consequence may be highly injurious, the intention is an inference of law

resulting from the doing of the act”.

In the present case the probable consequence of the act of the accused,will in all the

possibilities cause death of her husband. This clearly means that Mrs. X expected the

consequence in question which was death of Mr. X.

Essentials of Mens Rea:-

I. Whether the act in question was voluntary act of the accused.

It is very clear from the facts that the act of taking off the oxygen pipe was a

voluntary act of the accused as there was no inducement on the part of the

deceased which would provoke the accused to do so.

II. Whether the accused had the foresight of the consequence of his conduct that

whether the result is foreseen.

The accused had the foresight of the consequence of her conduct which was

the death of her own husband.

Shivanarayan Kabra v State of Madras 1976 Cr.L.J. 946 In the true nature of things it

is not always possible to prove. Dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be

proved by number of circumstances under which reasonable inference can be drawn.

AIR 2004 SC 3084 direct evidence held not always possible in respect thereof-

reasonable inference can be drawn from a number of circumstance.

Similarly in AIR 2008 627, intention on the part of the person to commit murder

must be gather from the back drop of event and the circumstances attending thereto

4
(1814)3 M & S 11, 15
In the present case the accused gave in to the circumstances and chose the easy way out

and decided to kill her husband and this act of the accused is not justified on any grounds.

Similarly, the intention can be easily inferred from the fact that constitute the backdrop of

the event of death.

Learned justice S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi in Benjamin v/s State, AIR 2008 SC 1383,

held that “ intention to kill a person must be determined having regard to factual

scenario involved in each case. Medical evidence corroborated to ocular evidence. There

cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased.

All the circumstances are against the accused and they have not been explained by

her. The aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances were solely responsible for causing

the death of the deceased. And there is nothing in the facts which creates doubt about the

correctness of the prosecution story.

It is evident from the facts that there is not even a single fact that creates the

slightest of doubt or possibility of natural death or death due to other unforeseen

circumstances or regarding the innocence of the accused.

Another question for consideration before the learned court is that the case false

under the exception 1 of the section 300 of Indian penal code.

The court as listed under exception 1 to Section 300 of Indian penal code Circumstances

under which the offence of murder will be reduce to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder punishable under section 304 of Indian penal code.

The following must be completed with order to be invoked the benefit of this clause:-

i. The diseased must have given provocation to the accused.

 ii. Provocation must be grave.

iii. Provocation must be sudden.

iv. The offender by reason of the said provocation , should have been

deprived of his power of self control.

v. The accused killed the deceased during the continuance of the

deprivation of the power of self control.

vi. The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the

provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.

In the scope of doctrine of provocation has been well stated , in the case of Mancini v

Director of Public Prosecution(1941) All Er 272(hl).

It is not at all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter (culpable

homicide) provocation to have that result must be such a temporary deprives the person

provoked of the power of self control as the result of which he commits the unlawful act

which cause death.

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, there was not even a single situation

that was of such a nature which would have temporarily deprived the accused of the

power of self control and would make her commit such a heinous crime.

Goddardd chief justice in R v duffy (1949) 1 all er 932 defines provocation-

provocation is some act, or a series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which

would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and

temporary loss of self control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make

him or her for the movement not master of his mind.

The two essentials of provocation that can be derived from this judgment are:-
 i. There shall be some act or series of act done by the dead man to

the accused,

ii. Which would cause in any reasonable man a sudden and

temporary loss of self control?

Whereas in the present case the deceased was in a “vegetable

state” for almost 2 years. So the question of this causing any sort

of incitement which would have actually caused the accused the

sudden and temporary loss of self control does not arise.

Thus it can be inferred that the present case does not fall under

exception 1 of section 300 Indian penal code.

It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh V/s state of Punjab AIR

1958 SC 465 (467) who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing

death is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Therefore in the light of the present set of facts and circumstances of the case and

arguments advanced, the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt and hence it has been proved that the accused has committed murder of the

deceased.
 PRAYER

It is pleaded that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of

reasonable doubt for the commission of offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code

and as such she be convicted for commission of above noted offence.

Prayer for Quantum of punishment:

Taking into consideration the nature of the offence and peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case Mrs. X shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.