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
contended that there is a well-established chain of circumstantial evidence proved by the Prosecution. b) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The present case clearly lead to only one inference, i.e, the accused are guilty. c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
Typology: Study notes
1 / 37
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
v. JORA .……………………………………………….…………….…………………. RESPONDENT UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SPARTA
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................. iv Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................... v Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................... viii Statement of Facts .......................................................................................................................ix Arguments presented................................................................................................................. xi Summary of Arguments ............................................................................................................ xii Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................... 1 I. Whether The Review Petition Is Maintainable .................................................................... 1 I.1. Requirements for maintainability of criminal review petition............................................... I.2. Error apparent on the face of record ...................................................................................... II. Whether Mens Rea To Cause Injury No. 2 Was Present ................................................... 3 II.1. Circumstances of the case indicates clearly towards the guilt of the accused….................. 3 II. 2. Gravity of injury no. 1 and its consequences….................................................................... 6 II.3. Actus Reus and Mens Rea of injury no. 2…......................................................................... 6 III. Whether The Accused Is Liable Under Section 302 DPC ................................................ 7 III.1. Liability for Injury no. 1...................................................................................................... 7 III.2.Liability for Injury no. 2..................................................................................................... III.3. Combination of injuries that lead to the death of the victim….......................................... IV. Whether Conviction Is Possible On The Basis Of Circumstantial Evidence …............1 1 IV.1. Liability on the basis of Circumstantial Evidence............................................................. IV.2. The series of events that conclude the guilt of the accused…........................................... V. Whether The Following Relevant Principles Were Neglected By The Court. .............. 14 V.1. Rule against hearsay evidence …....................................................................................... V.2. Victim escape cases and rules of causation........................................................................ 16
Anr. Art. Bom. Cri. L.J. Cri. Ap. No. DPC. Dr. Edn. FIR Mad. No. Ors. p. PAT SC SCC SEA Sec. Supp. v. All India Reporter Andhra Pradesh Another Article Bombay Criminal Law Journal Criminal Appeal Number Dastar Penal Code Doctor Edition First Information Report Madras Number Others Page Patna Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Spartan Evidence Act Section Supplementary Versus
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the review petition filed before the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of Sparta to be read with Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 made under Article 145 of the Constitution of Sparta. Article 137 states that: Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it Article 145 provides with Rules of Court, A. 145 (1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court.
of considerable amount of blood resulted in anoxic brain damage arising out of falling out of the train.
Issue 1: Whether the review petition is maintainable. Issue 2: Whether Mens Rea to cause injury no. 2 was present. Issue 3: Whether the accused is liable under section 302 DPC. Issue 4: Whether conviction is possible on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Issue 5: Whether the following relevant principles were neglected by the court. Issue 6: Whether the court’s decision acquitting the accused from the charge of section 302 of Dastar penal code is justifiable.
Issue 5: Whether the following principles were neglected by the court of law. It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court of Sparta that some of the principles of legal jurisprudence were neglected by the court of law which is one of the reasons why this review petition is maintainable here, those principles are: rule against hearsay evidence, rule of causation, one sequential event, gravity of the offence. Issue 6: Whether the court’s decision acquitting the accused from the charge of Section 302 of Dastar Penal Code is justifiable. It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court of Sparta that the court’s decision acquitting the accused from the charge of Section 302 of Dastar Penal Code is not justified because the fact, regarding the Mens Rea to cause the injury no.2 was present, was neglected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sparta. Injury no.1 and injury no.2 were the cause of the death of the victim, and both of them were intentionally inflicted by the accused on the victim.
I : Whether the review petition is maintainable. It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court of Sparta that; this review petition is maintainable. I.1. Requirements for maintainability of criminal review petition The review petition can be filed when there is error apparent on the face of record under article 137 of the constitution and in accordance with, and subject to, the rules of the court made under article 145. Article 137 states that “subject to the provisions to any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.” The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake.^1 The review petition is maintainable if it is shown that there has been miscarriage of justice.^2 It is not uncommon for the court to be invited to decide if its order, decision or judgment suffers from any such error, which calls for review of the order, decision or judgment, as the case may be. If, therefore, any review petition is made, the court shall consider the review petition gracefully and with an open mind so that no miscarriage of justice is caused.^3 Adherence to any faulty decision would result in miscarriage of justice and in such cases, nothing can prevent a court from rectifying its error, because the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit^4 can be invoked, in such a case for correcting the error committed by the court. Review literally and even judiciously means re-examination and re-consideration.^5 Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Exceptions, both statutorily and judicially, have been carried to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record^6 was explained as; a review may be granted, whether on any ground urged at the original (^1) Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR2000 SC 1650 (^2) Devender Pal Singh v. State NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 886 (^3) The High Court of judicature at Patna and anr. V. Rakesh Kumar, Civil Review no.153 of 2015 (^4) An act of court shall prejudice none (^5) State of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2006; S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595 (^6) B.F. Pushpaleela Devi vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Its ... on 7 August, 2002; 2002 (5) ALD 1, 2002 (5) ALT 103 (Bench: A Lakshmanan, R M Bapat, B S Reddy, G Mohammed, G Rohini)
That the victim was rendered unconscious and practically immobilized due to injury no. 1 and could not have jumped off the train, providing enough evidence that the accused pushed her off the train. All these ultimately establish;
found teasing a female friend of the victim to which the victim objected. The accused then threatened the victim of dire consequences if any of them complained to the police. However, the victim, not surrendering to the threat, filed a complaint against the accused at the Sherpur police station and the police registered an FIR against the accused and the police investigation was going on in this matter. The accused was a habitual offender and aggravated by this complaint made by the victim, decided to take revenge on her. If his intent would have been simply to rob a person, he could have robbed anyone but the fact that the accused specifically went to the women’s compartment when the victim was alone implies that his intention was not merely to rob her but much more than that.^10 Knowledge that victim was alone in that train compartment alone at that time It is not a mere coincidence that the victim wass found alone by the accused in the train compartment. Neither can any prudent man establish that a person goes with the intention to rob and mean while commits murder and rape as well. The accused had the intention to kill the victim from the beginning and to fulfil his intentions, he was frequently searching for her at the Sherpur bus stop since the day of the FIR launched (people has noticed him near the Sherpur bus stop) and while he was observing her daily routines, he concluded that she was a regular passenger of the train from Shergarh to Sherpur district and on 1st^ June 2017, he got a chance when he finally found her alone in the women compartment. Section 8 in The Spartan Evidence Act, 1872- Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. —Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Previous conduct here is relevant. Infliction of injuries without any provocation (^10) Refer Argument II.
helpless victim). He showed necrophilic behavior when he raped her which further adds to the gravity of his offences. The injuries caused due to rape and organ dysfunctions are also relevant. II.2. Gravity of injury no. 1 and its consequences. Injury no. 1^11 was enough to render the victim completely unconscious^12. Multiple brain fractures indicate that the victim’s head was smashed in the wall multiple times, mercilessly. The damage done by the same is talked in argument no. 3. assault on victim was so violent that not only did she fracture her head, but she sustained deep injuries. II.3. Actus Reus and Mens Rea of injury no. 2 II.3.1. Actus Reus The victim was unconscious because of injury no. 1 and after that she was thrown out of the train with the intention of murder by the accused. Injury no. 2 is ‘aspiration of considerable amount of blood resulting in anoxic brain damage’ according to Dr. Priya. With the help of medical jurisprudence, it can be deduced that she was unconscious because she neither had the ability to protect her head nor was she able to show the reflexes required to prevent aspiration of blood. A conscious human, in such a situation, would be expected to:
Issue III: Whether the accused is liable under section 302 DPC. It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court of Sparta that the accused is liable under section 302 DPC as all the ingredients required are being fulfilled here. 300(1) DPC defines murder. – “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.” The accused is liable under section 302 DPC as he is liable for both injury no.1 and injury no. III.1 Liability for Injury no. 1 III.1.1 Medical jurisprudence provides: According to the Dr. Priya injury no. 1 was ‘lacerated wound with a surrounding abraded contusion on left side of forehead above eye brow, abraded contusion on right side of fore head just above eye brow and contusion of left temporalis muscle, involving its whole thickness. The left orbital margin showed a fissured fracture. The floor of left side of anterior cranial fossa also showed fracture. There is traumatic disruption of stem of pituitary gland and left frontal lobe of brain showed multiple areas of hemorrhage and this was out of the hitting of her head at the wall of compartment of train’. Supreme Court has already acknowledged that the attack inside the train was brutal. Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) was invoked by the apex court which itself has recognized injury no. one on the victim's body as a major reason for her death. Frontal Lobe The frontal lobe^13 is the part of the brain that controls important cognitive skills in humans, such as emotional expression, problem solving, memory, language, judgment etc. It is, in essence, the “control panel” of our body. Damage to frontal lobe^14 (^13) Salardani Arash & Jose Biller, The Hospital Neurology Book. (^14) Salardani Arash & Jose Biller, The Hospital Neurology Book.
