du moot-appellant - updated - final - f

8/17/2019 Du Moot-Appellant - Updated - Final - F

1/33

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAT NEW DELHI, INDIA

---

Appeal Filed Under

Article 132 & 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950

---

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2013

THE STATE ...........………………………………………………………Appellant

s!

RAMESH .....................................................……………………………Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honorable Chief Justice of India !therCompanion Jud"es of The Honorable Supreme Court of India


2/33

"#ritten $u%ission on 'ehalf of The Appellant"


3/33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Index of Authorities

I. Acts/Statutes

II. Books

III. Internet Sources

IV. List of Cases

List of Abbreviations

Statement of Jurisdiction

Statement of Facts

Statement of Issues

Summar of Ar!uments

Ar!uments Advanced

"raer


4/33

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. Acts/Statutes

Indian "ena# Code

$he Constitution of India

Code of Crimina# "rocedure

%vidence Act

II. Books

&atan#a# ' (hira)#a#*s $he

Indian "ena# Code ++rd%dition &e,rint -1-

&atan#a# ' (hira)#a#*s La of

Crimes0 A commentar on

$he Indian "ena# Code0 12

-2th edition.

Crimina# "rocedure3 &.V.

4e#kar*s Crimina# "rocedure

b (r. C.5.

Chandrasekharan "i#ai.

$ext book on Indian "ena#

Code B 4rishna (eo 6aur0

Fourth %dition.

Internet Sources

htt,7//.find#a.com

htt,7//.indiankanoon.co

m

htt,7//.ind#ainfo.or!/

htt,7//.)stor.or!.

htt,7//.)udis.nic.in htt,7//.#asofindia.or!

htt,7//.manu,atra.com

htt,7//.sccon#ine.com

#ritten $u%ission on 'ehalfof The Appellant"

http://www.findlaw.com/http://www.indiankanoon.com/http://www.indiankanoon.com/http://www.indlawinfo.org/http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/%20http:%2F%2Fwww.jstor.orhttp://www.judis.nic.in/http://www.lawsofindia.org/http://www.lawsofindia.org/http://www.scconline.com/http://www.indiankanoon.com/http://www.indiankanoon.com/http://www.indlawinfo.org/http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/%20http:%2F%2Fwww.jstor.orhttp://www.judis.nic.in/http://www.lawsofindia.org/http://www.scconline.com/http://www.findlaw.com/


5/33

IV. List o Cases

R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9

Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18]

Rajesh ovind !agesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2""" Cri #! $8"% &'(R 2""" SC 1)"* Ra+ Chander Mandal s.State, 199-('&elhi*1, 199)&$9*R!$)$

State of /arnata0a v !oseph Rodriges, , Cri+inal 'ppeal os. 1")3, 1")) and 12$92""4

Mahesh v. State of M.5, M'6SC"24)198- % &198-* $ SCC 8"

!ash7ha Bharatsinha v state of jarat, -M'6SC13)11994 % &1994* SCC $3$

Ravji v. state of Rajasthan, M'6SC"213199) % &199)* 2 SCC 1-3

#a+i s. 6nion f (ndia : others 2"1$ &9*

/halil;6r;Rah+an, &19$$* 11Rang. 21$,

Monira+


6/33

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. 7 A## India &e,orter

Art. 7 Artic#e

Cr!C. 7 $he Code of Crimina# "rocedure0 189+

E"n. 7 %dition

e.#. 7 %xam,#e 6ration :For %xam,#e;

HC 7


7/33

"#ritten $u%ission on 'ehalf of The Appellant"


8/33

STATE'ENT OF (URISDICTION

$he a,,e##ant has a,,roached the of $he Constitution of India0 18?. $he case is #isted for ar!uments before the (ivision Bench

of the


9/33

an appeal nder s7 @lase &@* shall lie s7je@t to s@h provisions as +aA 7e +ade in that

7ehalf nder @lase & 1 * of 'rti@le 143 and to s@h @onditions as the


10/33

;Dritten S7+ission on Behalf of Hhe 'ppellant;


11/33

S)NO!SIS OF FACTS

&eema0 10 a bri!ht and

ambitious student of 1-th

standard be#on!in! to a

#oer midd#e c#ass

fami# used to !ive

tuitions to su,,ort her

fami#.

&amesh0 accused

number 1 :res,ondent;is a maths teacher at

&eema=s schoo#.

@n &eema=s 1th

birthda &amesh

or!anied a birthda

,art for her at his

house and !ifted her an

ex,ensive atch.

@n 1>th

Februar -1+0&amesh ,ro,osed

marria!e to &eema0

&eema asked him to

s,eak to her ,arents

about the ,ro,osa#0

&amesh a,,roached

&eema=s ,arents ith the

,ro,osa# hich as

re)ected b them.

&amesh as arned b

&eema=s ,arents to staaa from their dau!hter.

&eema=s ,arents a#so

arned &eema and

threatened to discontinue

her studies. $hereafter

&eema maintained her

distance from &amesh

and made her intentions

to adhere to her ,arents=

orders strict#.

(es,ite resistance0

&amesh continued to

contact &eema


12/33

,ersona##0 throu!h

,hone and internet0 as

e## as fo##o her to her

tuition c#ass.&eema re,orted &amesh=s

behavior to her ,arents0the rebuked &amesh for

his acts des,ite their

arnin! and disinterest.&eema=s ,arents beat

&amesh and ordered him to

#eave.

&amesh enra!ed ith

&eema=s ,arents

decision and actions

ent to ahesh0 >?0 and

narrated the entire

seDuence of events.ahesh as &amesh=s

confidante and a

father# fi!ure.

ahesh su!!ested that

&amesh shou#d force

&eema to marr him

ithout informin! her

,arents0 he further

su!!ested that &amesh

shou#d carr a bott#e of

acid to threaten &eema

ith in case she resists

the marria!e.

After initia# hesitation0

&amesh a!rees to do as

ahesh su!!ested.

@n -+rd arch -1+ as

,#anned &amesh and

ahesh found &eema

on a #one# road andordered her to

accom,an them to the

tem,#e so that &amesh

can marr her. &eema

refused0 on her refusa#0

ahesh threatened her

ith the bott#e of acid

hi#e &amesh started

dra!!in! her into the

car. &eema shouted in

resistance on hershoutin!0 ahesh


13/33

o,ened the bott#e of acid

and thre it on her face.

&amesh and ahesh

both f#ed the scene of

crime.

&eema as taken to the

hos,ita# b a ,asserb0

here she underent

sur!eries and treatment


14/33

for !rievous in)uries and burns.

&eema=s statement as recorded and a FI& as #od!ed a!ainst both the accused under Sec +-2A r/ Sec +>

I"C0 12 and &amesh as a#so char!ed under Sec +?>(0 I"C0 12.

ahesh absconded and as dec#ared a ,roc#aimed offender hi#e &amesh as arrested b ,o#ice from his home and the bott#e of acid and car0 used in the crime0 ere seied from his

,ossession.&amesh as ,ut to tria# before the sessions court here he ,#eaded not !ui#t0 Sessions Court convicted

&amesh under Sec. +-2A r/ Sec. +> I"C0 12 and sentenced him to 1 ears of ri!orous

im,risonment. ( I"C0 12 and dismissed the a,,ea# of the State0 bein! bereft of an

substance. It he#d that under the circumstances of the case the Sessions Court had ron!# he#d the

accused #iab#e under Sec. +-2A0 I"C0 b invokin! Section +> I"C012 as no common intention to

commit the offense of acid attack under Sec.+-2A cou#d be ,roved. $he ( as not made out a!ainst the accused. $he ( I"C and a#so to enhance the com,ensation aarded b the

Sessions Court0 to &u,ees three #ac fift thousand0 to be ,aid b the accused to the victim under Sec.

+-2A0 I"C0 120 in addition to the com,ensation to be ,aid b the State 6overnment under Sec

+?9A Cr"C. $he State a#so sou!ht ,ermission for addition of char!e under Sec +22 I"C.



15/33

STATE'ENT OF ISSUES

T*e A++e&&ant res+ectu&&,

asks t*e Hon$%&e Su+re-e

Court o In"ia t*e

o&&oin# 0uestions1

2*et*er co--on intention

as +resent *en Ra-es*

an" 'a*es* a#ree" to use

aci". 2*et*er aci" t*ron

on Ree-a as in

urt*erance o t*e co--onintention.

2*et*er t*e actions o

Ra-es* ere it or

aar"in# o &ie

i-+rison-ent un"er Sec

345Ar/ Sec.36 I!C an"

Sec 376D I!C.

2*et*er t*e

co-+ensation aar"e" %,t*e Sessions Court to t*e

8icti- un"er Sec 345A

I!C in a""ition to

co-+ensation to %e +ai"

%, t*e State 9o8ern-ent

un"er Sec 37:A Cr!C

s*ou&" %e en*ance".

2*et*er +er-ission

s*ou&" %e #i8en to a"" t*e

c*ar#e un"er Sec 355 I!C.


16/33

SU''AR) OF AR9U'ENTS

Co--on intention as +resent

*en Ra-es* an" 'a*es*

a#ree" to use aci" an" aci"

t*ron on Ree-a as in

urt*erance o t*e common

intention.

It is humb# submitted to this court

that common intention as ,resent beteen &amesh and ahesh fromthe moment &amesh a!reed to

ahesh*s ,#an of usin! acid to force

&eema to marr him. As ,er Sec +>

I"C an act done b severa# ,ersonsin furtherance of common intention

makes each ,erson #iab#e for that act

in the same manner as if it ere done b him a#one. $he hon*b#e


17/33

Sessions Court to t*e 8icti-

un"er Sec 345A I!C in a""ition

to co-+ensation to %e +ai" %,

t*e State 9o8ern-ent un"er

Sec 37:A Cr!C s*ou&" %e

en*ance".

It is humb# submitted to this court

that the com,ensation aarded to

&eema b the Sessions Court shou#d

be enhanced as ,er Sec +-2A the

com,ensation shou#d be sufficient to

su,,ort the medica# treatment of the

victim0 hoever the !iven

com,ensation of to #acs

:-00/3; is not sufficient as the

ex,enditure occurred is

;Dritten S7+ission on Behalf of Hhe

'ppellant;


18/33

over six and a ha#f #acs :20?0/3; and further treatment needs to be done hich inc#udes

fifteen more sur!eries. $he court is reDuested to enhance the com,ensation to three #acs and

fift thousand :+0?0/3; a#on! ith the com,ensation hich the state needs to ,a as ,er

Sec +?9A Cr"C.

!er-ission s*ou&" %e #i8en to a"" t*e c*ar#e un"er Sec 355 I!C.

It is humb# submitted to this court that ,ermission ma be !ranted to add the char!e under Sec +22 I"Ca!ainst &amesh. Sec +22 I"C dea#s ith kidna,,in!0 abductin! or inducin! omen to com,e# her

marria!e. As ,er Sec +22 I"C &amesh*s ,#an and actions c#ear# had the intention to forcefu## marr

&eema a!ainst her i## ith coercion.


19/33

AR9U'ENTS ADVANCED

2*et*er t*e Hi#* court *as ai&e" to take notice o t*e act t*at t*e co--on intention as+resent as Ra-es* ? 'a*es* a#ree" to use t*e %ott&e o aci"s in t*eir +&an o a%"uction an" aci"

as t*ron in urt*erance o t*at co--on intention.

It is humb# submitted to this court that common intention as ,resent beteen &amesh and ahesh from themoment &amesh a!reed to ahesh*s ,#an of usin! acid to force &eema to marr him. As ,er Sec +> I"C an act

done b severa# ,ersons in furtherance of common intention makes each ,erson #iab#e for that act in the same

manner as if it ere done b him a#one. $he hon*b#e essentia# e#ements of an offense are7

Mens Rea (Intention): Mens rea refers to the crime=s menta# e#ements of the

defendant=s intent. $his is a necessar e#ementGthat is0 the crimina# act must be vo#untar or ,ur,osefu#. Mens

rea is the menta# intention :menta# fau#t;0 or the defendant=s state of mind at the time of the offense0 sometimes

ca##ed the giltA +ind . It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure ori!in0 Eactus reus non facit reum nisi mens sitreasE that is trans#ated as Ethe act is not !ui#t un#ess the mind is !ui#t.E

:ii; Actus Rea &Cond@t*% $he actions or the conduct or the execution of ma#afide intentions is

Actus &ea. "osession

1

&. v. ohan H188> - S.C.&. 8


http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page13http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page13


20/33

Concurrence% ( n !enera#0 +ens rea and a@ts res must occur at the same timeGthat is0

the crimina# intent must ,recede or coexist ith the crimina# act0 or in some a activate

the act.Cause7 Causation is the Ecausa# re#ationshi, beteen conduct and resu#tE. $hat is to sa

that causation ,rovides a means of connectin! conduct ith a resu#tin! effect0 t,ica##

an in)ur.

IV. In the case in hand0 a## four e#ements of crime are ,resent ithout doubt0 in furtherance of

that 0 attention must be dran to the Co++on (ntention as,ect of this case the test of intention

for those ho administer the crimina# )ustice sstem is that0 hen ,#annin! their actions0 ,eo,#e

ma be aare of man ,robab#e and ,ossib#e conseDuences. @bvious#0 a## of these

conseDuences cou#d be ,revented throu!h the sim,#e ex,edient either of ceasin! the !iven

activit or of takin! action rather than refrainin! from action. So the decision to continue ith

the current ,#an means that a## the foreseen conseDuences are to some extent intentional 0 i.e.ithin and not a!ainst the sco,e of each ,erson=s intention. In the !iven case0 hen ahesh

su!!ested to &amesh the use of Acid in order to intidate0 threaten and forcefu## marr &eema

&amesh as fu## aare of a## the ,ossib#e and ,robab# conseDuences of usin! acid of hich

one ha,,ened to be causin! !revious hurt or even death of &eema. 4noin! the ,ossib#e and

,robab# conseDuences &amesh a!reed to ahesh=s ,#an this satisfied the test of intention0

hich as c#ear# ma#ifide and crimina# in this case.

V. $he fact that &amesh did not resist ahesh=s ,#an as e## as stood as a mute itness to ahesh=saction of throin! acid on &eema c#ear# sho the intention as common and eDua## ma#afide. It

can be said ith certaint that &amesh had the intention to inf#ict bodi# harm on the victim otherise

&amesh ou#d have disa!reed of use to bott#e of acid and ou#d have not accom,anied ahesh to

abduct &eema ith the use of bott#e containin! acid. Since the conduct of the accused &amesh hose ,resence at the scene of the occurrence stands ,roven beond doubt0 at the time hen ahesh as

throin! acid !ives sufficient ,roof that both shared common intention and further &amesh sim,#

atched to the accused ahesh throin! acid on &eema neither tried to


21/33

intervene or save nor ,revented the accused ahesh from doin! it so it is c#ear#

estab#ished that the accused &amesh had intended to cause in)ur0 disfi!urements and

disabi#ities of the victim.

VI.


22/33

@o++on intention @an develop even dring the @orse of an o@@[email protected]

VIII. $hese facts c#ear# estab#ish that common intention on the ,art of both the accused and section +>. I"C

is ri!ht# ,ressed into service. $he to!etherness of the to accused at the time at the time of the incident andsoon after the incident c#ear# estab#ishes their common intention to commit the crime. A Duestion arises that

if there as no common intention h did not &amesh tried to ,revent or intervene and h did he run aa

a#on! ith ahesh #eavin! &eema in immense ,ain $he on# anser to this Duestion is that there as a

common intention :hich ha,,ens to be essentia# e#ement 1 of a crime as stated in ,ara!ra,h III; and their

actions on arch ->th

ere in furtherance of that common intention com,#etin! the essentia# e#ement -0 +0

> for a crime as stated in ,ara!ra,h III. of both the accused in the crime. $hus the a,,e##ant finds no merit in

the ar!ument that section +>0 I"C cannot be invoked in the facts of the ,resent case so as to convict the

a,,e##ant as ,er this case Ra+ Chander Mandal s.State, >

IK. From the above circumstances it is crsta# c#ear that the had common intention to commit such heinouscrime. es0 the act of throin! the acid as c#ear# a manifestation of the ,#an and carrin! the acid as an

essentia# and im,ortant action ,#an.

Ra-es*;s actions ere it or aar"in# o &ie i-+rison-ent un"er Sec 345A r/ Sec 36

I!C an" Sec 376D I!C.

It is humb# submitted to this court that &amesh*s actions in connivance ith ahesh caused ,ermanent dama!e0deformit0 burns0 disabi#it and dis3fi!uration amounts to !rievous hurt b throin! Acid and as ,er Sec +-2A

these actions of &amesh and ahesh are ,unishab#e b #ife im,risonment. It is a#so submitted that &amesh ma

be convicted under Sec +?>( as it is a knon fact that &amesh had been fo##oin! her0 contactin! her on ,hone

and internet des,ite her resistance0 disinterest and arnin! b her ,arents these actions of &amesh amount tosta#kin!.

1889IA(:(e#hi;10 1882:+8;(&J+2+


23/33

Acid throin! is an extreme# vio#ent crime b hich the ,er,etrator of the crime seeks to

inf#ict severe ,hsica# and menta# sufferin! on his victim. $his kind of vio#ence is often

motivated b dee,3seated )ea#ous or fee#in!s of reven!e a!ainst an innocent oman.

"er,etrators of the crime act crue## and de#iberate#. $he act of usin! bott#e of acid as a

,remeditated act of vio#ence as the ,er,etrator of the crime carries out the attack b firstobtainin! the acid0 then carrin! it on him and then sta#kin! the victim before executin! the

act.

As e#aborated u,on in Ar!ument I0 ,ara!ra,h V &amesh did not do anthin! to ,revent

ahesh from throin! the acid0 he stood there atchin! it hi#e &eema suffered.

Further so he as the on ho drove ahesh to &eema0 abducted &eema0 dra!!ed her

and a#so f#ed a#on! ith ahesh. $he fact that &amesh had no sense of remorse or

resentment c#ear# shos his ma#afide intentions and eDua# ,artici,ation in throin! of

acid on &eema..

IV. As ,er section +> I"C M ea@h of s@h persons is lia7le for that a@t in sa+e +anner as if it ere 7A hi+ aloneG, this section c#ear# ho#ds &amesh #iab#e for the act of throin!

acid on &eema as ar!ued in ar!ument I ,ara!ra,h I3VII there as c#ear common

intention beteen ahesh and &amesh0 hich makes &amesh eDua## #iab#e.

Sec +-2 I"C dea#s ith offenses in hich !rievous hurt is caused vo#untari# b

dan!erous ea,ons or means0 in the !iven cases sub section A i## a,,# as that s,ecifies

Acid as the means for causin! dama!e0 dis3fi!uration or disabi#it. Sec +-2A states that 7

J$2)'. Dhoever @ases per+anent or partial da+age or defor+itA to, or 7rns or +ai+s or disfigresor disa7les, anA part or parts of the 7odA of a person or @ases grievos hrt 7A throing a@id on or

7A ad+inistering a@id to that person, or 7A sing anA other +eans ith the intention of @asing orith the 0noledge that he is li0elA to @ase s@h injrA or hrt, shall 7e pnished ith i+prison+ent of either des@ription for a ter+ hi@h shall not 7e less than ten Aears 7t hi@h +aA etend to



24/33

i+prison+ent for life, and ith fine%

5rovided that s@h fine shall 7e jst and reasona7le to +eet the +edi@al epenses of

the treat+ent of the vi@ti+%

5rovided frther that anA fine i+posed nder this se@tion shall 7e paid to the vi@ti+.J

VI. $he dama!e caused to &eema has been ,roven beond doubt to be of !rievous nature

hich has ruined her #ife0 career and future for her and her fami#. &eema has had to

under!o 2 sur!eries and 131? more sur!eries i## need to be conducted0 &eema has #ost

vision in one ee0 &eema has ,ermanent scars on the skin of her hands and face. &eema

has suffered ,hsica##0 emotiona## and menta## beond re,air and the sufferin! can is

beond measure.

VII. In the !iven case0 &amesh c#ear# caused the most severe de!ree of dama!e

,ossib#e and deserves the maximum ,unishment in order to set ,recedent hich i##deter others from abusin! and ruin! #ives of omen.

VIII. Further0 &amesh=s action ,rior to the attack on &eema on arch -> th amount to

conviction under sec +?>( I"C0 hich states that 3

J$34. &1* Dhoever follos a person and @onta@ts, or atte+pts to @onta@t s@h

person to foster personal intera@tion repeatedlA, despite a @lear indi@ation of

disinterest 7A s@h person, or hoever +onitors the se 7A a person of the internet,

e+ail or anA other for+ of ele@troni@ @o++ni@ation, or at@hes or spies on a

person in a +anner that reslts in a fear of violen@e or serios alar+ or distress in

the +ind of s@h person, or interferes ith the +ental pea@e of s@h person, @o++itsthe offen@e of stal0ing%

5rovided that the @orse of @ond@t ill not a+ont to stal0ing if the person ho

prsed it shosKK

that it as prsed for the prpose of preventing or dete@ting @ri+e and the person

a@@sed of stal0ing had 7een entrsted ith the responsi7ilitA of prevention and

dete@tion of @ri+e 7A the state> or

that it as prsed nder anA la or to @o+plA ith anA @ondition or


25/33

reire+ent i+posed 7A anA person nder anA la> or

&iii* that in the parti@lar @ir@+stan@es the prsit of the @orse of @ond@t as reasona7le.

Dhoever @o++its the offense of stal0ing shall 7e pnished ith i+prison+ent of either des@ription

for a ter+ hi@h shall not 7e less than one Aear 7t hi@h +aA etend to three Aears, and shall also7e lia7le to fine.L

IK.

A5P/SC/->2/189 7 :189; + SCC



26/33

cases0 he understands and a,,reciates the #an!ua!e of deterrence more than the reformative )ar!on.

$herefore0 undue sm,ath to im,ose inadeDuate sentence ou#d do more harm to the )ustice sstem to

undermine the ,ub#ic confidence in the efficac of #a0 and societ cou#d not #on! endure such serious

threats. $he dut of ever Court to aard ,ro,er sentence havin! re!ard to the nature of the offence and the

manner in hich it urns executed or committed etc. :see Sevak "eruma# v. State of $.5.;. $he crimina# #aadheres in !enera# to the ,rinci,#e of ,ro,ortiona#it in ,rescribin! #iabi#it accordin! to the cu#,abi#it of

each kind of crimina# conduct.

KII. In Jashubha Bharatsinha v. state of 6u)arat 9 the


27/33

sufficient to su,,ort the medica# treatment of the victim0 hoever the !iven

com,ensation of to #acs :-00/3; is not sufficient as the ex,enditure occurred is

over six #acs :20?0/3; and further treatment needs to be done hich inc#udes fifteen

more sur!eries. $he court is reDuested to enhance the com,ensation to three #acs and

fift thousand :+0?0/3; a#on! ith the com,ensation hich the state needs to ,a as ,er Sec +?9A Cr"C.

As ar!ued in ar!ument - it is c#ear that &amesh as !ui#t of causin! !rievous hurt b

throin! acid on &eema the dama!e is !rave and beond fu## re,air. "hsica#0 emotiona#

and menta# dama!e aside there is a #ot of monetar dama!e hich &eema and her fami#

have suffered because of this attack. &eema has a#read under!one 2 sur!eries hich have

cost the fami# over six and a ha#f #ac &u,ees :20?0/3;0 the doctors have stated that there

i## be need for 131? more sur!eries and further on!oin! treatment. &eema has a#so #ost her

#eft ee and has ,ermanent scars on her hands and face. &eema=s father has #ost his )ob

because of extended #eave for &eema=s treatment. &eema=s father a#so has - oun!er

dau!hters to su,,ort. $he dama!e and distress caused to &eema and her fami# is beondmeasure and re,air.

A#thou!h no amount of com,ensation i## brin! &eema=s #ife back to as it as before the

attack0 hoever it is her ri!ht under Sec +-2A to !et com,ensation from &amesh to meet her

medica# ex,enditure. $he a,,e##ant submits to this hon=b#e court to order the res,ondent to

three and a ha#f #acs &u,ees :+0?0/3; as com,ensation to &eema0 immediate# for her

medica# treatment.

IV. $he a,,e##ant a#so submits to this hon=b#e court to order the state authorities to ,a

the com,ensation to &eema hich she is entit#ed to under S+?9A :-; Cr"C same as

ordered b the


28/33

to in s7;se@tion &1*.J

As stated in the )ud!ment b this hon=b#e court b hon=b#e Justice & Lodha in the

case0 Laxmi Vs. Pnion @f India ' others 83 $hat the current com,ensation ,acka!e of a## states

and P$s G ran!in! beteen &s ?0 and &s 1.? #akh G is inadeDuate to meet costs of

treatment and rehabi#itation. $he )ud!ment a#so reiterated that &s. 1 #ac of the com,ensation

must be ,aid b the authorities ithin 1? das of the attack bein! re,orted. $he )ud!ment sas 3

?(t @annot 7e overloo0ed that a@id atta@0 vi@ti+s need to ndergo a series of plasti@ srgeries

and other @orre@tive treat+ent. Dith regard to this, the soli@itor general sggested that the

@o+pensation a+ont to 7e paid 7A states to a@id atta@0 vi@ti+s +st 7e enhan@ed to at least Rs

$ la0h,G ?Hhe 7alan@e of Rs 2 la0h shall 7e paid 7A the state or 6nion HerritorA @on@erned as

epeditioslA as possi7le and positivelA ithin to +onths of the in@ident.

VI. 4ee,in! this hon=b#e court=s )ud!ment as reference a,,arent submits that the court ma order the

state !overnment to ,a com,ensation to &eema immediate# in addition to the com,ensation to be ,aid

b &amesh under sec +-2A I"C.

!er-ission s*ou&" %e #i8en to a"" t*e c*ar#e un"er Sec 355 I!C.

It is humb# submitted to this court that ,ermission ma be !ranted to add the char!e under Sec

+22 I"C a!ainst &amesh. Sec +22 I"C dea#s ith kidna,,in!0 abductin! or inducin! omen to

com,e# her marria!e. As ,er Sec +22 I"C &amesh*s ,#an and actions c#ear# had the intention to

forcefu## marr &eema a!ainst her i## ith coercion.

$his hon*b#e Court has the ,oer to add or a#ter an char!e at an time before )ud!ement is

,ronounced under sec -12 Cr"C.

Laxmi Vs. Pnion @f India ' others


29/33

Section +22 I"C states that7

/idnapping, a7d@ting or ind@ing o+an to @o+pel her +arriage, et@.;; Dhoever 0idnaps or

a7d@ts anA o+an ith intent that she +aA 7e @o+pelled, or 0noing it to 7e li0elA that she ill 7e

@o+pelled, to +arrA anA person against her ill, or in order that she +aA 7e for@ed or sed@ed to illi@itinter@orse, or 0noing it to 7e li0elA that she ill 7e for@ed or sed@ed to illi@it inter@orse, shall 7e

pnished ith i+prison+ent of either des@ription for a ter+ hi@h +aA etend to ten Aears, and shall

also 7e lia7le to fine> and hoever, 7A +eans of @ri+inal inti+idation as defined in this Code or of

a7se of athoritA or anA other +ethod of @o+plsion, ind@es anA o+an to go fro+ anA pla@e ith

intent that she +aA 7e, or 0noing that it is li0elA that she ill 7e, for@ed or sed@ed to illi@it

inter@orse ith another person shall also 7e pnisha7le as aforesaid.L

In the !iven case0 it is ,roven beond doubt that &amesh anted to abduct &eema

and marr her forcefu##. @n ->th

arch &amesh a#on! ith ahesh executed this ,#an and found&eema a#one and attem,ted an abduction. $his c#ear# ,roves that the intention to abduct as ver

much ,resent. $his incident i## come under the ambit of Sec +22 as a case of abduction as &eema

ha,,ened to be ei!hteen ears0 hereas kidna,,in! a,,#ies to on# minors.

IV. $his hon*b#e court he#d in the case of /halil;6r;Rah+an and


30/33

vio#ation0 the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence. $he on# bear u,on

the intent hich the accused kidna,,ed or abducted the oman0 and the intent of the accused is the

vita# Duestion for determinin! the case. Intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of

the case and the subseDuent conduct of the accused after abduction has taken ,#ace.

VI. In order to constitute offence of Rabduction* a ,erson must be carried off i##e!a## b force or

dece,tion that is to com,e# a ,erson b force or deceitfu# means to induce to !o from one ,#ace to

another as )ud!ed in the case of Rajinder v state of Maharashtra 11.

VII. $o constitute the offence under section +220 it is necessar for the ,rosecution to ,rove that the accused

induced the com,#ainant oman or com,e##ed b force to !o from an ,#ace0 that such inducement as b

deceitfu# means0 that such abduction took ,#ace ith the intent that com,#ainant i## be com,e##ed to marr. 1-

VIII. 4no#ed!e on the ,art of the accused at the time of abduction or kidna,,in! that the oman

ou#d be com,e##ed to marr a!ainst her i## is sufficient to constitue an offence under this section 1+

IK. It is humb# submitted before the hon*b#e Su,reme Court of India to add a ne char!e under

Sec +22 I"C in the tria# of this case. As &amesh had a intention and kno#ed!e a#on! ith ahesh

to abduct &eema and forcefu## take her to the tem,#e for marrin! her ithout the information to

her ,arents.

$his c#ear# shos that &amesh used force to com,e# her to accom,an him to the tem,#e here he anted

to marr her. $his ,roves beond doubt that &amesh has committed the offence under Sec +22 I"C0 the same

has been over#ooked b the

&a)inder v state of aharashtra

&atan#a# ' (hira)#a#*s La of Crimes0 A commentar on $he Indian "ena# Code0 12 -2th

edition0 "! --.:18?+3?>; 2 SauL& +-8:+++;:(B;.

http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24http://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/HYPERLINK%23page24


31/33

com,etent authorit hich framed the initia# char!es as e## as the hon*b#e Sessions

Court and hon*b#e


32/33



33/33

!RA)ER

Nherefore in the #i!ht of the issues raised0 ar!ument advanced0 reasons !iven and Authorities cited0

this hon*b#e court ma be ,#eased to7

"ronounce &amesh as !ui#t under Sec +-2 r/ Sec +> and Sec +?>( I"C and sentence him to #ife

im,risonment.

%nhance the com,ensation to be ,aid b the accused under Sec +-2A I"C to the victim to &u,ees

three #ac fift thousand a#on! ith the com,ensation to be ,aid b the State 6overnment under Sec

+?9A Cr"C.

$o !rant ,ermission to add char!e under Sec +22 I"C.

$o ,ass an other order hich the

du moot-appellant - updated - final - f

Documents