IN THE HONORABLEHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND In the matter of Basudev Vs. The State of Pepsu Memorandum on behalf of the Appellant Counsel for Appellant Apoorva Chandra Sem 5th Section-C Roll no.25 1 .............................................................................. Statement of Fact............................3 3.. Questions Presented......8 7..........................................................................................................................................................9 8............................................................13 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS Sec ........................................... Index of Abbreviations.............................. Prayer for Relief..........................................................................................................3 2...............................................................6 5..7 6................................................................................................................... Summary of Pleadings........... TABLE OF CONTENTS 1...................... Statement of Jurisdiction............10 9... Index of Authorities.... Laws and Provisions applied.. Section 2 ......5 4.. Written Pleadings..... S. and shall also be liable to fine. if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing 3 .Indian Penal Code.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent. Section 299 – Indian Penal Code. commits the offence of culpable homicide.Supreme Court Cr.Criminal Law Journal I. unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. . 1860 Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated. or imprisonment for life.P.others RULES AND STATUTES REFERRED Section 86.” Section 302. or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. 1860 Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death.—whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.C.J. 1860 Punishment for murder.C. and shall also be liable to fine. .Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life. or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. . Section 304.Number Ors . or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. . L. a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.Indian Penal Code. 1860 Punishment for Culpable Homicide ( not amounting to murder). versus No. .Indian Penal Code v.Indian Penal Code. 131] 4 . or with fine. or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. or with both.R. Meakin [(1836) 173 E. but without any intention to cause death. or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Rex v.death. 895 Mavari Surya Satyanaraina v. Rio [1975 Cr. [(1994) 3 All ER 353 HL] Baba SadashivaJadhav v. Doherty (1887) 16 Cox C. 610] Reg. v. Cruse and Mary [(1838) 173 E. Kingston. State of Maharshtra [1984 CrLJ 739 (Bom)] Enrique F. LJ 689 (AP)] R.B. [1995 Cr.C. 55 Reg. Monk-house (1849) 4 Cox. Meade [1909] 1 K. State of A. C.R. Regina v.. v. LJ 1337 (Goa)] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5 . v.C. 306 Rex v.P. 6 .The Appellants have approached the Honourable Supreme Court of India under Article 134 of the Indian Constitution. 5. Both of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another village. 4. 1954. The appellant asked Maghar Singh. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. An appeal to the Pepsu High Court at Patiala proved unsuccessful 7 . This circumstance and the total absence of any motive or premeditation to kill were taken by the Sessions Judge into account and the appellant was awarded the lesser penalty of transportation for life. But Maghar Singh did not move. 7. aged about 15 to 16. 2. 3. The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. the young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a convenient seat. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar Singh. The party that had assembled for the marriage at the bride's house seems to have made it very merry and much drinking was indulged in. The learned Sessions Judge mentioned "he was excessively drunk" and that "according to the evidence of one witness Wazir Singh Lambardar he was almost in an unconscious condition". The appellant Basdev of the village of Harigarh is a retired military Jamadar. The injury proved fatal. 6. All of them went to the house of the bride to take the midday meal on the 12th March. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. The appellant Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and intoxicated. ISSUES RAISED I WHETHER IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A CASE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE OR MURDER? II WHETHER THE APPELLANT WILL BE LIABLE FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE OR MURDER? 8 . this section attributes to a drunken man. The appellant should be held liable only for culpable homicide As established in cases. but not any such intention. Section 86. In the instant case it shall be proved that the appellant is not guilty or murder under Section 300. Here the appellant was in an almost unconscious state of intoxication. when assuming liability of the appellant as would be had he not been intoxicated is subject to certain limitations. Thus. but is only liable for culpable homicide. the intention of a sober man. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED I. II. The appellant is not liable for murder. This knowledge is as a result of a legal fiction and contructive intention cannot be invariable raised as supplied in the cases cited herein. whether the accused was having intention while committing an actcannot be presumed as in the case of knowledge. THE APPELLANT HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT THE MURDER. for the offence of killing another person. ACT AMOUNTS TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE Section 86 which was elaborately considered by the High court runs in these terms: 9 . rendering all questions of intent to kill the boy moot. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS I. yet it is often of very great importance in cases where it is a question of intention. we can apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts. although you cannot take drunkenness as any excuse for crime. the cases where mensrea is required shall not be satisfied only with such a construction to hold liability for murder. and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about.1" Stephen J. postulated the proposition in this manner in Reg. A person may be so drunk as to be utterly unable to form any intention at all. the latter part deals only with knowledge and a certain element of doubt in interpretation may possibly be felt by reason of this omission. 541. 8 Car. and yet he may be guilty of very great violence. we must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. It has been discussed at length in many decisions and the result may be briefly summarised as follows :- So far as knowledge is concerned. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking. This is not the first time that the question comes up for consideration.R. Was the man beside his mind altogether for the time being? If so it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. Doherty 2 ". yet when the crime is such that the intention of the party committing it is one of its constituent elements. Cruse and Mary his wife (1838) 173 E. you may 1Regina v. If involuntary drunkenness knowledge is to be presumed in the same manner as if there was no drunkenness.."In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent.. It is no doubt true that while the first part of the section speaks of intent or knowledge. 610. a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated..& P. 2(1887) 16 Cox C. "It appears that both these persons were drunk..C.. unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will". But so far as intent or intention is concerned. 306 - 10 . v. and although drunkenness is no excuse for any crime whatever. we must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. Rio3 that “…. he would not be convicted under Section 302 as he didn’t have the requisite intention to kill but should be convicted under Section 304 Part II. “he realised what he had done and thus requested the witnesses to be forgiven saying that it had happened from him” and wishing he could take back what he had done. IPC by virtue of imputed knowledge under Section 86. what he was doing far less forming the requisite intention to kill as is given in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.P.look at the fact that a man was in drink in considering whether he formed the intention necessary to constitute the crime". 31975 Cr. His conviction was latered from under S. the accused cried and asked for forgiveness. APPELLANT SHOULD BE PUNISHED ONLY UNDER SECTION 304 PART II AND NOT SECTION 302 It was held in the case of Enrique F. Therefore.C. due to the extreme intoxication. which clearly goes on to show that he was beside his mind altogether. instant thing and not like the case where earlier the man was able to extinguish the fire he had set but here the gunshot wound could not be reversed. so far as knowledge is concerned the Court must attribute to the drunken man the same knowledge as that of a sober man but so far as intent or intention is concerned the Court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. as soon as her sari started burning he started extinguishing it. State of Maharshtra4a man under the influence of intoxication tried to set fire to his wife. goes on to say that he had not formed any such specific intention to kill that boy and since the act of shooting a person is a one-time. IPC. Though he did set his wife on fire. LJ 1337 (Goa) 41984 CrLJ 739 (Bom) 11 .” Also in the case of Baba SadashivaJadhav v.302 I.P.C. II.304 (1) I. to one under S. In the instant case we see by the establishment of facts that after committing the act of killing the boy.where the accused in in a stage of extreme intoxication caused grievous hurt to a person but was incapable of knowing. happened to strangulate her to death. or with both.Section 299 specifies that “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death. commits the offence of culpable homicide. 12 . and shall be liable to fine. if the act by which the death is caused id done with the intention of causing death. It was established in a case that when a drug addict who always struggled against his mother to get money. if the act is done with the knowledge that is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death. or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. one in relation to the punishment while the other is founded on the intention of causing that act. or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.” There are two apparent distinctions between parts I and II of this Section. His conviction was recorded under S. or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” As has been clearly established here that there was actually the commission of culpable homicide and not murder due to the lack of formation of intention. shall be punished with imprisonment for life. 304 Part II and not under Section 302. the appellant should be held liable only for culpable homicide and punished with Section 304 that says. without any intention but with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder. in order to silence herto enable himto steal money. or with fine. issues raised. To allow the appeal. All of which is respectfully prayed. To hold the appellant liable only for culpable homicide and punished under Section 304 Part II. it is submitted that the honorable Supreme Court of India. . be pleased 1. 2. arguments advanced and authorities cited. PRAYER FOR RELIEF In light of the facts stated. PLACE: NEW DELHI COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS DATE: 26TH SEPTEMBER 2016 APOORVA CHANDRA 13 .