INDIAN PENAL CODE

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Case Concerning
Exercise the Defence of Insanity

BAPU@GAJRAJ

(Appellant)

Vs.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Respondent)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
ROHIT DONGRE

SUBMITTED BY:
ROLL NO- 132
BATCH-XIII

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 1

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................
Judicial Decisions.03
Statutes and other authorities.03
Books.03
Dictionaries...03
Websites....03
ABBREVIATIONS........04
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................05
STATEMENT OF FACTS06
ISSUES RAISED................................................................................................07
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................08
__________________________________________________________________
___________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION......09-11
______________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 2

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

National Judgments

1. State of M.P v Ahmadulla1 AIR 1961 SC 998

2. Bhikari v State of Uttar Pradesh2 AIR 1966 SC 1
3. Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v State of Maharashta3 (2003) 7 SCC 748

STATUTORY AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. Constitution Of India
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS
1. Gaur, K.D. A textbook on indian pen, 34th Edition(2014)
2. Ratanalal And Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code c, 3rd edition (2004)
3. David Ormerod, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, 12TH Edition (2008)

DICTIONARIES
1.Aiyar , P. Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 2nd edition, Rep. 2007
2. Bakshi , M.P, The Law Lexicon, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi., Edition 2005
3. Garner Bryan, Black Law Dictionary, West Group Publications, 7th Edition.
WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com

1
AIR 1961 SC 998
2
AIR 1966 SC 1
3
19(2003) 7 SCC 748

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 3

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.C...Appeal Cases
AIR..All India Reporter
Ed...Edition
LJ...Law Journal
LR...Law Report
No.Number
Ors..Others
P..Page Number
QB...Queens Bench
SC.Supreme Court
v..versus
VolVolume
www...world wide web

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 4

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE PRESENT CASE
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 5

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted for
offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian penal code,1860 and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- with default
stipulation. The order of conviction was recorded by learned special judge SC/ST,
(Prevention Of Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Pratap Garh , Rajasthan.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during the trial is as follows: On 26.08.1995 at about 8

am Mithu Singh (PW1) heard the scream that run run he will her. On hearing the
scream he rushed towards the house of appellant where Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, Smt.
Nand Kanwar, Smt. Jagdish Kanwar, Smt. Mohan Kanwar were shouting loudly. Smt.
Phool Kanwar told him that the accused is beating his wife. It was found by the informant
on looking inside from the roof top that the accused was carrying a sickle in one hand and
the Chopped head of Smt. Govind Kanwar (herein referred to as the deceased) in other
hand. The Sickle was blood stained and the blood was flowing on the floor from the
body.
3. Number of other persons including Ram Singh and Chain Singh came to the spot.
Sohanla and Udai Singh who belonged to the police force also reached the spot.
Constable Udai Singh climbed up to the roof and looked into the house. He also found
that the accused was standing in the house with chopped head of a lady in one hand and a
blood stained sickle in the other hand. With Efforts made by the people present at the
spot, door was unbolted by the accused and he was arrested by the police.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant with reference to the evidence of some of the witnesses
submitted that the police officials themselves wanted protection from the court being
disturbed by the violent behavior of the appellant. It was submitted that Grand father and
uncle of the accused suffering from insanity and, therefore, the trial court and the High
Court were not justified in refusing the protection under Section 84 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- state on other hand supported the judgement of
conviction as recorded by the trial court and as upheld by the High Court. According to
him though there is material on record to show that accused appellant at some point of
time suffered from unsoundness of mind, that is not sufficient to bring in application of
Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 6

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the accused is guilty of Murder?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 7

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

The Act of Accused cannot be considered as Murder as per Section 300 of Indian Penal Code,
1860. As one of the Essential of the Crime , Mens Rea is not present. At the time of the
Occurrence of the Purpoted Offence, the Accused was not in a condition to understand the
consequences of the Act done. And thus, he is entitled to the Defence of Insanity under Section
84 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 8

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

CONTENTION NO-1

The Issue raised in the case is that whether the Appellant is eligible to
get the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Court or not?

THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF MURDER

In order to Constitute a crime under the IPC, the presence of two important ingredients must be
fulfilled. These are (a) Actus Reus: the external or physical element of crime; (b) Mens Rea: the
mental element of the crime
The Actus Reus is made up , generally, of conduct and sometimes its consequences, and also of
the circumstances in which the conduct takes place.4 The facts of the present case indicate, prima
facie, that Actus Reus was present as the act of Gajraj resulted in his wifes death. However, the
presence of only Actus Reus is not enough to constitute Crime, it must be established that not
only Mens Rea was present but it must be present together, that there must be a coincidence of
Actus Rea and Mens Rea.5

In the case of Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu6, the Supreme Court gave three degrees of Mens
Rea, any one of which is sufficient to prove a peronss criminal intent. The act must be done:
(a)With the intention of causing death, or

(b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or

(c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. However, none of the above is
present in the case.

4
Nafiz Ahmed v. State 1989 CriLJ 1296(Bom); Harbans Singh Bhan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637
5
David Ormerod, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law 45( 12 th ed. Oxford Press 2008)
6
AIR 1976 SC1519

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 9

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

Insanity is one of the the general exceptions to criminal liability under Indian Penal Code. By the
virtue of the maxim actus reus non facit reum nisi means sit rea, an act forbidden by penal law is
not punishable if it is not done by guilty mind. A mad man is punished by his own madness7

ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 84
One of the main points to be highlighted under this section is that law is only concerned only
with the insanity at the time of the act8.The existence of unsoundness of mind prior to the act or
after the commission of the act is neither relevant nor per se sufficient to bring the case within
the exception provided under Section 84 of The Indian Penal Code, 18609.

The Supreme Court of India in State of M.P v Ahmadulla,10 has held he burden of proof is upon
the accused to prove that he was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time when he did the
act. In this case the accused had murdered his mother-in-law to whom he bore ill-will in
connection with his divorce. It was proved that he got into the house by scaling over a wall with
the aid of light and entered the room where deceased was sleeping. All this showed that murder
was committed not in sudden mood of insanity, but that was preceded planning and exhibiting
cool calculation. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court in execution and directed against the
person accused convicted of offence of murder, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for
life.

In Bhikari v. State of Uttar Pradesh11, the accused was working in the field. A few Month before
the occurrence, he had threatened to kill all family members of the deceased. Further, on the date
of event, though there were other people around, he carefully chose, only the children of the
deceaseds family. All this indicated that his actions were deliberat premeditated and not acts of
insane man.

7
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England, vol 4. 17th edition,1830,p 304.
8
Dayabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. Ste of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563
9
Ratanlal v. State of MP
10
AIR 1961 SC 998
11
AIR 1966 SC 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 10

 INDIAN PENAL CODE

In Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra12, the accused killed his wife by hitting on
her head with a grinding stone when she was washing clothes. He took the plea of Insanity as a
Defence. The Trial Court and the Bombay High Court rejected it. He contended before

the Supreme Court, which led to the benefit of Section 84, as he, at the time killing
his wife was not sane. There was also a history of psychiatric illness in the family.

12
(2003) 7 SCC 748
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 11
 INDIAN PENAL CODE

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

a) Adjudge the Apellants Defence under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code

correct

Hence it must set the earlier decision and not pass any other further order(s), as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Place: New Delhi Rohit Dongre

Date: 8th October, 2015 (On behalf of the Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 12