Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This Memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the claims are based in the instant case. The Appellants affirm that they shall accept any Judgment of this Hon’ble Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
S.No CASE NAME CITATION PP.
The appellant in this case under section 374(2) of CRPC Section 374(2) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 runs as follows (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 years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court. This Memorandum sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the claims are based in the instant case. The Appellants affirm that they shall accept any Judgment of this Hon’ble Court as final and binding upon itself and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith.
Mala and Rahul were married in 2001 and were residing at vijaya nagar, Chennai. However after few years their relationship got strained and were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issue. One day, mala left her matrimonial house with her eldest daughter pinto and started living with her father Gopala Krishna at jayanagar ,Chennai. Rahul kept his younger daughter , pinkoo with his sister, deepa and prevented mala from seeing the child. During a noon mala came to deepa's house and forcefully took pinkoo with her. Rahul on hearing this reached Gopala Krishna’s house and quarreled. After two days of the incident, Rahul and Gopala Krishna happened to meet at a market place and started to quarreled and grappled with each other. Both fell down .In the heat of passion thus generated Gopala Krishna slapped Rahul saying he would kill him. Rahul in fit of rage and took a stick lying nearby and gave a blow to the stomach of the Gopala Krishna. Gopala Krishnan, who was suffering from diseased spleen felt down instantly .Before dying Gopala Krishna gave his dying declaration regarding the fight and then knowledge of Rahul about enlarged spleen. Rajaji nagar police arrested Rahul and filed charge sheet. Evidence was led by prosecution in the sessions court and during trail an eye witness stated that it was Gopala Krishna who slapped Rahul and started the fight .The trail court relying on dying declaration of Gopala Krishna convicted Rahul for commission of murder and sentenced him for life imprisonment. Rahul challenged the conviction by filing a criminal appeal, before the High court of madras , relying on the deposition of the eye witness.
[I] Whether it is a murder or not? It is not a murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation causes the death of a person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any person by mistake or accident. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense. It is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a quarrel in an unusual manner. Mere sudden quarrel would not entitled the accused to seek for exception^1 .Where a mutual conflicts develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defense for both side^2. It is fallacious to content that when death is caused by single blow clause at thirdly is not attracted and therefore it would not amount to murder the ingredient ' intention in that clause gives clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not^3. The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same clause of society as the accused placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to losses self-control^4. In India words and gestures may also under certain circumstances cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first exception. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken in to consideration in accenting whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence.
(^1) Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu,(1997)2 Crimes 185 (Mad). (^2) Januram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,(1997)2 Crimes 582(MP) (^3) Jai Prakash vs. State(Delhi Administration)(1991) 1 Crimes 474(SC) (^4) Venkatesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu(1997)3 Crimes 146(Mad)
Eye witness means if you saw something happened that is relevant to the case in criminal cases you can be called by either side in case, the evidence as an eye witness must be about the facts that is what you actually saw rather than any assumption you have made from what you saw you will then be cross examined by the other side. That even were a case hangs on the evidence off a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given a sterling testimony of a competent honest man although has a rule of prudence court call for corroboration it is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not founded since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs^5 , in this case there is eye witness that Gopala Krishnan started the argument first and fought with Rahul. The accused is not required to prove the plea of private defense of person beyond reasonable manner of doubt^6. The onus on the accused is only to show that the defense version is probable one which is reflected from the salient features and the circumstances in the prosecution case itself; The self-defense is a basic human right here that, Gopala Krishnan started the fight and he said that he will kill Rahul and Gopala Krishnan slapped Rahul and threatened him that he would kill him, where Rahul in that time for a self-defense blow a stick in Gopala Krishnan’s stomach. Now it is crystal clear that Rahul have no intention to kill Gopala Krishnan because during the incident they were in the market place. In that time Gopala Krishnan started the argument and the fight started, both of them fell down in that time Gopala Krishnan said that he will kill Rahul and Gopala Krishnan slapped Rahul in the heat of passion Rahul without intentionally Rahul blow Gopala Krishnan with the nearby stick. So here the incident conducted under no intention on it only done by the heat of passion. So it is proved Rahul does not have motive and preparation to murder Gopala Krishnan. [III] Whether the dying declaration is valuable evidence? There is no rule, which prohibits the courts from taking a dying declaration into consideration for the purpose of sustaining any conviction in the absence of any corroborative evidence^7. When a comparison is made between the dying declaration and the account of an eye witness, it is not correct to put both evidence on the same peddle and the evidence of the eye witnesses stands on the higher footing. If a dying declaration is made by a person soon after the incident of attack on him then it can have greater evidentiary value. In this case Goplakrishnan gave dying declaration to the unknown person so here the evidentiary value of dying declaration is less. (^5) Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra,(1973) 2 SCC 793 (^6) Sawai Ram vs. State of Rajasthan,(1997) 2 Crimes 148(Raj) 7 Sunil Kashinath Raimale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cr.L.J 589 (Bom)
