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
The case of a famous actress, ms. Harissa, who was murdered by her husband, mr. Zambo. Mr. Zambo was convicted of murder under section 302 of the indian penal code (ipc), but he argued that he should be able to claim a defense under section 84 of the ipc, which deals with acts of a person of unsound mind. The document analyzes the legal principles and case law related to the insanity defense, including the requirements of 'actus reus' (the criminal act) and 'mens rea' (the criminal intent). It examines whether the present appellant, mr. Zambo, can successfully claim the defense of insanity under section 84 of the ipc, given the circumstances of the case. A detailed legal analysis and arguments from both the prosecution and the defense perspectives, ultimately concluding that mr. Zambo cannot claim the insanity defense as he was of sound mind at the time of the commission of the crime.
Typology: Cheat Sheet
1 / 18
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
6.1: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN RECORDING THE FINDING THAT THE MASKED MAN IN THE FOOTAGE IS THE APPLEANT? 6.2: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? (A) ACTUS REUS (B) MENS REA 6.3 WHETHER THE PRESENT APPELLANT CAN CLAIM DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 84 OF IPC? (A) APPELLANT WAS NOT INSANE 7: PRAYER
11: State v. Dinakar Bandhu, (1969) 72 Bom LR 90 12: Elavarasan v. State, (2011) 7 SCC 110 13: Jagdish v. State of M.P., (2009) 9 SCC 495 14: Sheralli Wali Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 4 SCC 79 15: Ratan Lal v. State of M.P., (1970) 3 SCC 533 16: D.G Thakker VS. State of Gujrat AIR 1964 SC 1563 17: Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 8 SCC 66 18: S.K. Nair v. State of Punjab, (1997) 1 SCC 141 19: Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495 20: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua 2022 Latest Caselaw 683 SC BOOKS 1: P S A Pillai’s Criminal Law, 14th^ edition
The relevant provision of the Section 374 of criminal procedure code reads as follows:
Whether the Trial court was correct in recording the finding that the masked man in the footage is the appellant? II. Whether the trial court was correct in convicting the appellant under section 302 of IPC? III. Whether the present appellant can claim defense under section 84 of IPC?
It is humbly argued before the hon’ble high court that the trial court was correct in recording the finding that the masked man in the footage is the appellant. This conclusion is affirmed on the basis of chain of circumstantial evidences found in the case. Whether it be the evidence related to the Green heart-shaped locket or its finding in Juno hospital. All the points discussed in the first issue will prove that masked man in the footage is appellant. II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? It is humbly argued before the Hon’ble high court that the trial court was correct in convicting the appellant under section 302 of IPC, 1860. The essentials of murder: Actus reus and Mens rea is accurately satisfied in the second issue of the pleading. The criminal act done by the appellant is proved as well as the criminal intent is also proved. III. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPELLANT CAN CLAIM DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 84 OF IPC? It is humbly argued before the hon’ble high court that the appellant cannot claim defence under section 84 of IPC, 1860. The prosecution in the third issue has briefly proved that appellant at the time of the commission of the act was not in the state of unsoundness of mind and was clearly able to understand the consequences of his acts and knew that it is contrary to law.
on the appellant. The Juno hospital was nearest the hospital to victim’s residence and then too appellant took two long hours to reach there. This clearly indicates that the masked man who killed the victim in none other than appellant. From the above-mentioned facts and events, the chain of events can be constructed which is circumstantial evidence which clears that the masked man in the footage is the accused. According to Prem Singh vs State (Govt of Nct Of Delhi ),^1 there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case.^2 The facts and events stated fulfills all these essentials in proving the appellant as the masked man in the CCTV footage. II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? It is humbly submitted that through the circumstantial evidences and the chain of evidences it is proved that the masked man in the CCTV footage is the appellant and the trial court was correct in convicting the appellant under section 302 of IPC, 1860. In order to bring a successful conviction on anyone under section 302 of the IPC, one should firstly prove all the essentials of murder laid down in section 300 of the IPC, 1860. A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury, (^1) Prem Singh vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) 2 016SCC (^2) Sanatan Naskar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2010) 8 SCC
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person.^3 The prosecution affirms that the both (2.1) Actus reus & ( 2.2) Mens rea of this criminal act are established in the further matter: 2.1: ACTUS REUS Actus reus refers to the physical element of the crime (murder) due to which death of victim takes places. In the present case, the death of the victim was due to poisoning established by the forensic reports. It was clearly proved by the prosecution in the first issue that the masked man in the CCTV footage was the appellant. If the masked man who dragged victim from her home in the parking lot was appellant then it shows that he firstly poisoned her and then dragged her into parking lot of the building. The reason behind this logic is that if the victim can eat with the killer and can spend her leisure time with him or can eat the food given by other person, then it clearly indicates that he wasn’t any outsider but a very intimate and close person. All these facts and evidence clearly points out that the appellant firstly poisoned her with ease as she trusted the appellant and he dragged her into the parking lot. Once the Actus reus is proven then it’s clear that the wrongful act has been committed. The Actus Reus is itself the offence. There might be cases where some mental element might be a part of the Actus Reus itself.^4 In Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, court held that what constitutes the offence under the 'Act' is nothing more than the 'actus reus' and mens-rea need not separately be established.^5 The act itself is so heinous which threatens the whole society at large. It is the nature and gravity of the crime not the criminal which should be in consideration for appropriate punishment in criminal trial. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not against only an indivisual victim but also against the society.^6 (^3) Section 300 IPC, (^4) Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat (^5) Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, [1974] 2 SCR 154 (^6) Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175
to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very slight motive.^13 As already stated in the facts of the case Ms. Harissa had an affair with her co-actor Mr. Poppi and she also was hiding her condition of mental illness i.e., Paranoid Schizophrenia. This event gave birth to feeling if betray and anguish in the mind of accused and hence, he had the requisite motive to kill the victim. By all these facts and logics it is clear that the accused is rightly convicted by trial court in section 302 for murdering Ms. Harissa because both essentials of the murder are proven. III. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPELLANT CAN CLAIM DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 84 OF IPC? It is humbly submitted by the prosecution that the present appellant cannot claim defence under section 84 of IPC because the appellant while committing the act was not of unsound mind and was able to understand the consequences of his act. Also, there are no such evidence presented by the counsel of the appellant which clearly proves that at the time of the commission of the act, he was insane. Also, in the second issue it has been clearly proved by the prosecution that there was presence of Mens rea in the act of the appellant. Intention or the state of mind of a person is ordinarily inferred from circumstances of the case. This implies that, if a person deliberately assaults to on ether and cause injury to him, then depending upon the weapon used and the body part on which it is struck, it would be reasonable to assume that the accused had the intention to cause the kind of injury which he inflicted.^14 To invoke the benefit of Section 84, it must be proved that at the time of commission of the offence the accused was (insane) non compos mentis (not of sound mind) and that the (^13) State v. Dinakar Bandhu, (1969) 72 Bom LR 90 (^14) Elavarasan v. State, (2011) 7 SCC 110
soundness of the mind was of such degree and nature as to fulfil one of the tests laid down in the section. The ingredients of this Section 84 IPC are as follows, i. That the accused was incapable of knowing the nature. ii. That the accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from understanding that what he was doing either right or wrong. 3.1 APPELANT WAS NOT INSANE The benefit of section 84 of ipc is available to a person who at the time of when act was done was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing wrong or contrary of law. The implication of this provision is that the offender must be of unsound mind at the time of commencement of act and his unsoundness of mind earlier or later are relevant only to the extent that they, along with other evidences, may be circumstances in determining the mental condition of an accused on the day of the incident.^15 But at the time of the commission of the act, appellant was not in the state of unsoundness of mind and he was able to understand the consequences of his act very well. According to the facts, the reason of the death was due to poisoning which clearly proves that it was a properly planned murder of the victim because the acts involved in the procedure of poisoning needs very sharp accuracy which indicates that person at any cost was not at the stage of unsoundness of mind. If he would have became insane he would have committed some raw attacks but he poisoned the victim which shows he was obviously sane minded. The law presumes that every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime.^16 It is well-settled that the crucial point of time at which unsoundness of mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this lies of on the accused.^17 In the present case, it is proved that at the time of the commission of (^15) Jagdish v. State of M.P., (2009) 9 SCC 495 (^16) Sheralli Wali Mohd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 4 SCC 79 (^17) Ratan Lal v. State of M.P., (1970) 3 SCC 533
In the case of Surendra Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand,^22 Supreme court held that, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression "unsoundness of mind" has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The courts play an important rule as they have to make sure that a sane person doesn’t absolve himself by wrongfully using the defence in his favour. In many jurisdictions, this defence has been abolished completely, e.g., Germany, Thailand, Argentina, etc. Now, at last, it has been proven that the masked man in the footage was the appellant and he is rightly convicted under 302, IPC and should not get the defence under section 84, IPC as he was sane at the time of commission of the act. Also, the punishment of the appellant must not be reduced only on the basis that he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any punishment less than the imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 would be contrary to Section 302 IPC.^23 (^22) Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495 (^23) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Nandu @ Nandua 2022 Latest Caselaw 683 SC
In the light in of the pleadings and authorities cited, the Prosecution humbly submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay may upheld the decision of the sessions court and declare that: 1: The trial was correct in recording the finding that the masked man in the CCTV footage is the appellant. 2: The trial court was correct in convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC,1860. 3: The present appellant cannot claim defence under section 84 of IPC. AND That the court may issue any order as the court deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good conscience. For this act of kindness, the Prosecution shall be duty bound forever.
