Roll No.

- 2016LJA148
GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY - CRIMINAL MOOT COURT

SEMESTER 10

Before

THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSIONS

CRIMINAL CASE NO. ____ OF 2021

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTION 307 AND

SECTION 326 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BETWEEN

STATE OF PUNJAB…………………………………PROSECUTION

v.

SANDEEP………………………………………………DEFENCE

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING ATTEMPT TO MURDER AND

VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT BY DANGEROUS
WEAPON

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………….……4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………..…5

• Cases……………………………………………………………..…5

• Books and Lexicons…………………………………………..……6

• Statutes………………………………………………………..……6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………8

5. CHARGES FRAMED..……………………………………….………9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………..…10

• ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………….11

[1] WHETHER SANDEEP IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 307?

[1.1] Essentials of Attempt to Murder…………………….…………11

[1.2] Clean Hands Doctrine……………………………………..……12

[1.3] Sudden Fight…………………….………………………………13

[1.4] Absence of Intention to Cause Death………………………..…13

[1.5] Absence of Preparation to Cause Death……………………….15

[1.6]Injury Not Sufficient to Cause Death………………………..…15

[1.7]Lack of Ocular and Medical Evidence……………………….…17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 2




 [2] WHETHER SANDEEP IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 326?

[2.1] Definition of Grievous Hurt and Dangerous Weapon……..……18

[2.2] Essentials of Section 326………………………………….………19

[2.3] The Act Cannot be Considered Voluntary ………………………20

7. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………….22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 3




 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

& Andhra Law Times

AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Code Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Cri Criminal
Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal
CRLJ Criminal Law Journal
CLR Criminal Law Reporter
Ed. Edition
E.g. Example
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e. That is
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
No. Number
Ors. Others
RCR Recent Criminal Reports
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
UT Union Territory
u/s Under section
v / vs. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 4

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• CASE LAWS CITED :

CHARGE I

1. Koppula Venkat Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (crl.) 84 of 1998

2. Kaluram vs St. of Assam, 1977 CR LJ 98

3. Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State, DB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.70/2009

4. Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors, 1988 AIR 2127

5. Dr. A.G. Bhagwat vs U.T. ,1989 CriLJ 214

6. Pritam Singh & Another v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1126-SB of
1999

7. Atma Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1982(2) CLR 496

8. Tej Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 611 : 1978 (6) CLR,
76

9. State of Punjab v. Tara Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 184

10. Nand Singh v. State of Punjab , 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801

11. Sunil Sadashiv Akare vs State Of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728

OF 2002

CHARGE II

1. State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha, (2000)(7) SCC 249)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 5

 • BOOKS USED :

S. No. NAME OF BOOK

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)

2. S.N. Mishra, The Indian Penal Code, 20th Ed. (2017)

3 S.N. Mishra, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 21st Ed. (2019)

• STATUTES USED :

S.No. STATUTES
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1972

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 6

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 1771 read with
Section 2092 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1 SECTION 177 : Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.
2 SECTION 209: Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it- When
in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate
and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and
until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 7










 STATEMENT OF FACTS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MANDEEP AND SANDEEP

Sandeep was the owner of a liquor vend. The relationship which subsisted between
Mandeep and Sandeep was of employee and employer. The liquor vend of Sandeep was
situated at village Nangal and it is here that Mandeep worked as an employee.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO SUFFERED STRAINS

Dispute over cash distribution was a reason that there were drifts between the two
and their relations became strained. It is alleged that Sandeep, the employer, was
doubtful that Mandeep had been cheating him and earning money by selling liquor.

THE INCIDENT

It is stated that one evening, both the complainant and the accused took liquor. At
about 11 30 p.m., accused proclaimed that he would finish the dispute once for all.
Mandeep and Sandeep blamed each other. Both were injured. It is stated that Sandeep
took up a dagger lying at the liquor shop and gave blows with the same in the
abdomen and chest of Mandeep. The latter tried to ward off the injuries with his
hands and as a result of which some injuries were received by him on his hands as
well.

THE LATER SCENARIO

Mandeep pushed Sandeep hard against the wall and raised alarm. Sandeep too was
injured. Hearing the noise, the guard came inside and tried to stop them. It is alleged
that Sandeep ran away from the spot carrying the dagger. Mandeep was shifted to the
hospital. On being medically examined, statements were recorded and FIR was
registered under Section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 8

 CHARGES FRAMED

CHARGE I

Sandeep has been charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
attempt to murder.

CHARGE II

Sandeep has been charged under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for
voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 9

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

FOR CHARGE I : Whether Sandeep is liable under Section 307 for attempt to
murder?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the alleged accused has not
committed any offence under the section 307 of the Indian penal code. This was a case of
sudden fight, occurring during the heat of the moment and without any pre-mediation. It is
further stated that the alleged victim had himself shown aggression towards the alleged
accused. Further, it is to be stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove their case
beyond reasonable doubt. Not only this, there is absence of any ocular evidence and medical
evidence which is a prerequisite in proving a case under section 307. It is further to be noted
that when the cases of a sudden fight and a person picks up the weapon during that fight, the
provisions of section 307 are generally not called for.

FOR CHARGE II : Whether Sandeep is liable under Section 326 for voluntarily
causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon?

It is humbly submitted before the court that both the victim and accused had a relationship
of the employer and employee and due to this relationship they were consuming liquor
together. Under the influence of that liquor they broke into a fight. It can in no way be
presumed that they both were conscious of what they were doing. During this sudden fight
one thing led to another and there was aggression and both the parties suffered injuries. It is
a case of version in cross version and who in real was the first aggressor cannot be
ascertained. Without the presence of a medical record is nothing can be pinned down on the
accused because if such a thing is done it would lead to miscarriage of justice and it would
be unfair to the accused as he would not be given a fair trial. The accused has just been
implicated in a false case due to an altercation he had with the alleged victim.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 10

 ARGUMENTS ADVACNED

CHARGE I : WHETHER SANDEEP IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION

307 FOR ATTEMPT TO MURDER?

[1.1] Essentials of Attempt to Murder :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that Sandeep has pleaded
not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The accused is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case because of his having some altercation at the liquor vend. It is
submitted that he has not committed an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 and should not be charged with for attempting to murder Mandeep.

2. The ordinary meaning of ‘Attempt’ to commit an offence is an act or series of acts which
leads inevitably to the commission of the offence unless something which the doer of the
act neither foresaw not intended happens to prevent this.3

3. It is to be noted that the essential elements of Section 307 are as follows 4:

3.1. That the death of human being was attempted;

3.2. That such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of
the accused.

3.3. That such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as-

3 Koppula Venkat Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Appeal (crl.) 84 of 1998

4 Kaluram vs St. of Assam 1977 CR LJ 98

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 11

 3.3.1. the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or

3.3.2. was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or that the
accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be
so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (1) death, or
(2) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no
excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.

[1.2] Clean Hands Doctrine :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that like any other litigant,
even the State must come to the court with clean hands. It is stated that this doctrine has
not been followed in the present case since there is sufficient evidence on record that
both the accused as well as victim are injured hence the possibility of act of aggression
on behalf of alleged victim cannot be ruled out.

2. It is further submitted that it is case of version and cross version. Hence it cannot be
determined that who was the actual aggressor. Aggression on part of the victim has also
been there but there is no report of the injury is being noted.

3. In Vaman Narain Ghiya vs State5, the Rajasthan High Court held that “It is, indeed, a
settled position of law that like any other litigant, the prosecution, representing the State,
has to approach the court with clean hands. For no litigant can be allowed to either
hoodwink the court, or to take it for a ride. The streams of justice cannot be muddled by
a clever prosecution.” The Court also held that “If the prosecution comes to the court
while withholding relevant documents, while hiding material witness, such tactics would
only undermine the trustworthiness of the prosecution case. For, if a party plays hide and
seek with the court, it does so at its own peril. Further by permitting the prosecution to
adopt such tactics and to get away with it, the court violates the right of the accused to a
fair trial. The court is not supposed to be a mute witness to a trial; it is expected to play a

5 DB CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.70/2009

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 12

 pro-active role in ensuring that the rights of the accused are not violated. After all, the
hallmark of the Indian Judiciary is the protection of the rights of the accused.”

[1.3] Sudden Fight :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that there was no intention
on part of Sandeep to attempt to kill Mandeep. It was sudden fight which arose at the
moment on the pretext of both of them being voluntarily intoxicated. There was no
premeditation on part of the alleged accused. It is of significant importance that the
incident began from blaming each other which converted into a fight. Before the accused
got hold of the dagger, the two had already laid hands on each other and were injured.

2. In Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors6 the Supreme Court of Indian held that
“Under Section 307 of IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in
that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary
constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of
"attempt to murder' under Section 307 of IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to
accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely
from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is
used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow the part of the body where the injury is
inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the
intention. 'Where the fight is accident allowing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under
Section 307 of IPC is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the
acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of IPC.”

[1.4] Absence of Intention to Cause Death :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the essential ingredient
to constitute an offence under this section is having the intention or knowledge. If an

6 1988 AIR 2127

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 13

 injury which in the ordinary course would have caused death, but is not done with an
intention to kill, the accused will not be convicted under section 307.

2. It is a matter of record that both the alleged victim as well as the accused were under the
influence of the liquor. Hence it is highly doubtful that the accused under a conscious
mind attempted to kill the victim. Moreover There is a well-established principle, “Actus
Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea,” which, in the literal sense means, an act does not
make an offender liable without a guilty mind. The Intention or guilty mind (Mens Rea)
of the offender is an integral part while committing a crime.

3. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that from the facts of the case
it is evident that Sandeep did not have the mens rea to murder Mandeep as he never
brought a weapon with himself from his home neither was any weapon found in his
possession. They were already quarrelling and were under the influence of liquor when
Sandeep got hold of dagger placed in the shop which was within Mandeep’s reach as
well.

4. “Before the act can hold that the act committed by the accused amounts to attempt to
murder or attempt to commit to culpable homicide, it should be satisfied that the act was
committed with such intention or knowledge under such circumstances that if it had
caused death, it would have amounted, in one case, to murder and in another case, to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”7

5. In Dr. A.G. Bhagwat vs U.T.8, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that “In order to
attract the applicability of this section to the facts of this case, it is necessary to find out
that if the victim had met with death could the offence be one under & 302, I.P.C. It is
well settled that for conviction under Section 307, I.P.C., if the intention or necessary
knowledge to cause death as envisaged by Section 300, I.P.C., which defines murder is
there, then it is immaterial whether or not any hurt was caused to the victim by the
accused. In other words, an act though sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

7 Ratanlal and Dheerajlal, The India Penal Code (32nd edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2010) 1753-83
8 1989 CriLJ 214

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 14

 cause death would not constitute an offence under this section if the necessary intention
or knowledge on the part of the accused is lacking. Thus for the purposes of this offence
what is material is the intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act
done for the purpose of carrying out that intention. Intent essentially implies purpose and
attempt is an actual effort made in execution of the purpose.”

[1.5] Absence of Preparation to Cause Death :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that in order to prove the
crime under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, an analysis of different stages of
crime is important.

1.1.The first stage is the intention to commit the crime,

1.2. Secondly, the preparation to commit the crime; and

1.3.Thirdly, an attempt to commit it.

1.4. Lastly, the actual commission of the offence.

2. It is pleaded before this Hon’ble Court of Session that Sandeep has been charged with
the offence of attempt to murder. In order to reach the stage of attempt, it is necessary
that the pre-requisites of intention and preparation need to be fulfilled. In the present
case, Sandeep did not have any intention to murder Mandeep and nor can the same be
inferred from the facts of the case. There was no preparation on part of Sandeep, hence
the act was not premeditated. It was during the spur of the moment that Sandeep got hold
of the dagger which could’ve even been in the hands of Mandeep.

[1.6] : Injury Not Sufficient To Cause Death In Ordinary Course of Nature

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the injury inflicted by the
accused is not one that would attract the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 15

2. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the medico legal
examination is silent about damage to any vital part of body.

3. In Pritam Singh & Another v. State of Punjab9, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that
“Meaning of the words "dangerous to life" are equivalent to "endangering life" and such acts
squarely covered within the ambit of clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC10, which is punishable
under Section 326 IPC.”

4. In Atma Singh v. The State of Punjab11, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court
held that “The expression 'dangerous' is an adjective and the expression 'endanger' is verb. An
injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed
as 'dangerous to life' and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life', he
means an injury which endangers life in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Indian Penal Code,
for, it describes the injury 'dangerous to life' only for the purpose of the said clause. He instead
of using the expression that this was an injury which 'endangered life' described it that the injury
was 'dangerous to life', meaning both the times the same thing.”

5. Injury described by the doctor as `dangerous to life and if not treated i.e. to say that but for
timely and medical aid the injured was likely to die. Such type of injury/opinion is not the type
of the injury as would attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC, which envisages an injury
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, such injury would fall within the ambit
of clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC, would be punishable under Section 326 IPC and in view
of such opinion, charge under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained.12 13

6. In Nand Singh v. State of Punjab14, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that “to bring an
offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had an
intention to commit murder of injured. This intention could be gathered either from the act of

9 Criminal Appeal No. 1126-SB of 1999

10 Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
11 1982(2) CLR 496
12 Tej Ram v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 611 : 1978 (6) CLR, 76
13 State of Punjab v. Tara Singh, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 184
14 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 801

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 16

 the accused or from the impact of the injuries. In this case, accused had inflicted 17 injuries on
person of victim with dagger. According to doctor, 9 injuries were dangerous to life, but he did
not describe any of those 9 injuries to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. It was held that the necessary ingredients required for bringing the offence under Section
307 IPC were lacking. It was held that the offence would fall under Section 326 IPC and not
under Section 307 IPC. Conviction under Section 307 IPC was set aside.”

[1.7] : Lack of Ocular and Medical Evidence

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the prosecution has
failed to put on record any ocular evidence to corroborate the testimony of the alleged
victim. Further, it is to be kept in mind that victim himself had been intoxicated at the
moment of the incident and the aggression he put up against the alleged accused is a
matter of concern.

2. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the medico legal
examination is silent about damage to any vital part of body.

3. In Sunil Sadashiv Akare vs State Of Maharashtra15 the Bombay High Court held that
“the injured Rekha has only stated that the accused inflicted stab injuries. The medical
evidence is absolutely inadequate to assist the Court in ascertaining the nature, extent
and in general the gravity of the injuries. The incident is blurred. It is not in serious
dispute that the accused and the injured were deeply in love and that the accused
consumed poison either immediately before or after the assault. It is difficult to attribute
with any certainty the intention to cause death. I am therefore, inclined to set aside the
conviction for offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and to instead convict the
accused for offence punishable under section 324 of the IPC.”

15 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728 OF 2002

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 17

 CHARGE II : WHETHER SANDEEP IS LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 326 FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT

BY DANGEROUS WEAPONS ?

[2.1] Definition of Grievous Hurt and Dangerous Weapons :

1. “Grievous hurt” has been defined under section 320 of the Indian Penal Code which
reads as under:-

1.1. Section 320 Grievous hurt. – The following kinds of hurt only are designated as
“grievous” :-

First -Emasculation.

Secondly – Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

Thirdly – Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly – Privation of any member or joint.

Fifthly – Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or

joint.

Sixthly – Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly – Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly – Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be
during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 18

 2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that in order to prove a
grievous injury it is necessary that the medical report should be present on the record.
However, no evidence of such sort has been produced by the prosecution and hence the
accused should be given the benefit of the doubt otherwise it would lead to miscarriage
of justice.

3. In State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha16, the Supreme Court of India held that
“there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for
that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or
grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. At this juncture, it would be
relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Sections 324 and 326 expressions
“dangerous weapon” is used. In some other more serious offences the expression used is
“deadly weapon” (e.g. Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in a particular case,
depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question
whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine
whether in the case Section 325 or Section 326 would be applicable.”

[2.2] Essentials of Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt By Dangerous

Weapons or Means :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that To hold a person
liable for punishment for committing the offence under sec 326 Indian Penal Code,
the following ingredients must be present. These are:
1.1. Accused must commit an act with the knowledge that he was likely to cause
grievous hurt to the victim.
1.2. He voluntarily caused it. No one forced him to do such an act.
1.3. He committed it by following means:
1.3.1. By any instrument of stabbing, shooting or cutting;
1.3.2. By an instrument, which if used as a weapon, can cause death of a
person.
16 (2000)(7) SCC 249)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 19

 1.3.3. By fire or any other heated substance.

1.3.4. By any poisonous or corrosive substance
1.3.5. By using any kind of explosive substances
1.3.6. By using substances which are hard to swallow or inhale by a human
body

[2.3] The Act Cannot Be Considered As Voluntarily :

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the Explanation to
Section 32217 states that when a person lacks intention while doing an act when he
would not be considered to have voluntarily caused grievous hurt.

2. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that the medico legal
examination is silent about damage to any vital part of body.

3. It is a matter of record that both the alleged victim as well as the accused were under the
influence of the liquor. Hence it is highly doubtful that the accused under a conscious
mind attempted to kill the victim. Moreover There is a well-established principle, “Actus
Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea,” which, in the literal sense means, an act does not
make an offender liable without a guilty mind. The Intention or guilty mind (Mens Rea)
of the offender is an integral part while committing a crime.

4. It is further submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Session that from the facts of the case
it is evident that Sandeep did not have the mens rea to murder Mandeep as he never
brought a weapon with himself from his home neither was any weapon found in his

17 SECTION 322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he
intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is
grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.”
Explanation.—A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous
hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause
grievous hurt, if intending or knowing hi self to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually
causes grievous hurt of another kind.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 20

m­

 possession. They were already quarrelling and were under the influence of liquor when
Sandeep got hold of dagger placed in the shop which was within Mandeep’s reach as
well.

5. It is pertinent to notice that the alleged victim and the accused were well known to each
other. One only drinks in the vicinity of the other that is with another person when they
are well acquainted otherwise they do not bother about that. Hence in the present case
there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the alleged accused and
the victim.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 21

 PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, charges framed, authorities cited and pleadings advanced, the
Counsel for the Defence humbly prays that Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and
declare:

• That the accused is acquitted from the charges framed under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• That the accused is acquitted from the charges framed under Section 326 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• That adequate compensation to be granted to the Appellant for the suffering due
to the constructive desertion and mental cruelty.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Date: 27/05/2021 Sd/-

Place: Jalandhar (Counsel for Defence)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE Page 22