IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT
New Delhi

State Tr. P.S. Lodhi Colony New Delhi

Appellants

Vs.

Sanjeev Nanda
Respondent

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT- Praveen Jhalani

ROLL NO. - 98

ON SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANTS

State Tr. P.S. Lodhi Colony New Delhi
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................4
 Cases
 Books
 Website
 Statues
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................7
ISSUE RAISED…………........................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................10

PLEADINGS……………………..........................................................................................11
 THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 304-II OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1860……………………………………………………………..………11

 THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS COMMITTED AND ERRED WHILE
CONVERTING THE OFFENCE FROM SECTION 304-II TO SECTION 304-A OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE………………………………………………………………….………13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………………………..15

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 3

ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Corpn. Corporation

ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

J. Justice

Ors Others

p. Page

para Paragraph

PW Public Prosecution

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

TN Tamil Nadu

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

Vol Volume

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. LIST OF CASES

 Narayanan Nair vs. State, AIR 1952 Cochin 239

 Nehru Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2005 (1) JCC 261

 State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan, (2004)1 SCC 525

 Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 428

II. Books

 Jain, M. P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, Lexis Nexis, Buttorworths

Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010

 Guar, K. D., The Indian Penal Code, 4th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. New

Delhi, 2011

 Gaur, H.S., Penal Law of India, 11th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. New

Delhi, 2006

III. Websites

 www.manupatra.com

IV. Statues

 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 5

V. The Constitution of India, 1950

VI. Dictionaries and Encyclopeadias

 Garner, Bryan A. Ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), West Group,

St. Paul

 Judy Pearsall, Concise Oxford Dictionary, ed., 10th ed. Oxford University Press, 2002

 Aiyer P. Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, 2nd Ed. Wadhwa & Co., 2002

 Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 14th. Ed. Sweet & Maxell, Indian Rep. 2003

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to file the Criminal Appeal under
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS
TO
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, at New Delhi.
May it please your Lordship,
The appellant most respectfully submits the appeal on the following facts as under:-
1. That Mr. Sanjeev Nanda (hereinafter referred as Respondent) was driving his brand new
BMW car bearing registration no. M 312 LYP on the cold wintry morning of 10th of
January 1999, at about 4:00 A.M.
2. That the Respondent was coming back from the party along with his friends and the said
car was driven by him. While driving the car, the respondent was in an inebriated state,
without having the Indian driving licence.
3. That the respondent was driving his car at a high speed and after driven almost 16 kms
from the place where he had started i.e. Nizamuddin, met with an accident at the Lodhi
Road. The impact of the accident was so great and severe, that few of victims flew in the
air and fell on the bonnet and wind screen of the car. On the account of this, the
respondent lost control of the vehicle which swerved to right side of the road and
ultimately hit the central verge.
4. That after hitting the central verge, car finally stopped at some distance and the
respondent came out from the car. At that point of time, the injured persons were
shouting and crying for help, but ignoring them, he drove away the care at high speed
towards Dayal Singh College, even though there was still some person beneath the car. In
the said accident 6 persons, including three police officers were trampled to death and
one person was injured.
5. That after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in
the Trial Court, New Delhi. On conclusion of trial, the Ld. Trial Court after appreciating
the evidence available on record, found the Respondent guilty of commission of offence
under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Culpable Homicide not amounting
to murder and awarded him a jail sentence of five years.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 8

6. Thereafter, the Respondent filed Criminal Appeal before the Delhi High Court at New
Delhi. In the said appeal the Hon’ble High Court converted the offence from section 304
II to 304A i.e. from Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder from death by
Negligence.
7. That after being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court, the Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to file
this present appeal.
.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 9

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Respondent is liable to be prosecuted under section 304-II of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi committed an erred while converting the
offence from Section 304-II to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION I- THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 304-II OF

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

Section 304-II of IPC says that an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without intention to cause death is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are two
requirement to constitute crime under section 304-II: A. intention should not be there B.
Knowledge about the consequences of the act.
A. Respondent committed the crime without any intention.

The facts and circumstances of the present case do not suggest any intention on the part of the
Respondent to cause death of six persons.

B. The Respondent had knowledge about the consequences of the act.

There are two things which will prove that the Respondent had knowledge of the consequences
of the crime B-i) Respondent was heavily drunk B-ii) Respondent was driving at an excessive
speed.

CONTENTION II- THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS COMMITTED AN ERRED WHILE CONVERTING

THE OFFENCE FROM SECTION 304-II TO SECTION 304A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

As it is mentioned in Contention I that the respondent has committed an offence of culpable

homicide, therefore, the Hon’ble High Court has committed serious erred while converting the

offence from Section 304-II to Section 304-A.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 11

PLEADINGS

I. THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 304II OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

Section 304-II of IPC says that an act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without intention to cause death is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.1

There are two requirement to constitute crime under section 304-II A. intention should not be
there B. Knowledge about the consequences of the act.

A. RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME WITHOUT ANY INTENTION.

The facts and circumstances of the present case do not suggest any intention on the part of the
Respondent to cause death of six persons. It is not even the case of the prosecution that either
because of any enmity or other provocation, the Respondent could be said to have intentionally
caused the death of these persons or inflicted an injury which was likely or sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.

So it is proved that the Respondent committed the crime without any intention to commit.

B. THE RESPONDENT HAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT.

The accident caused is not a case of rash and negligent act on the part of the Respondent. The
sequence of events as disclosed in the FIR and more aptly shown in the site plan, proved on
record, clearly goes to show that the Respondent was driving the said vehicle in a heavily
drunken state and at an excessive speed beyond the prescribed limits and thus he had sufficient
knowledge that such an act would endanger lives of people on road.

1
Section 304-II, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 12

The Delhi High Court in the case of Nehru Jain Vs. State of NCT of Delhi2 held that even in a
case where the act of offender in its nature is very dangerous and from which knowledge about
the likely consequences including the death of a human being can be attributed to him, the
offence committed would be culpable homicide punishable under Section 304-II.

There are two things which will prove that the Respondent had knowledge of the consequences
of the crime B-i) Respondent was heavily drunk B-ii) Respondent was driving at an excessive
speed.

B-i) Respondent was heavily drunk

Blood report which was given by PW-16, Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer found
0.115% volume ethyl alcohol in blood sample of Respondent. The said test report was duly
exhibited as Ex.PW-16/A in the evidence of PW-16, Dr. Madhulika Sharma. She clearly
explained that 0.115 % would be equivalent to 115 mg per 100 ml of blood. She also clearly
deposed that as per Section 1853 of Motor Vehicle Act if a person is under the influence of liquor
and alcohol content in blood exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, the person is said to have
committed an offence. Whereas, in the present case it is much above i.e.115 mg.

In the case of Narayanan Nair vs. State4 the Cochin High Court while referring to Taylors
Medical Jurisprudence Volume II observed that the presence of 0.15 mg of alcohol in the blood
can be considered a dangerous amount of alcohol in the blood. that presence of 0.115% of
alcohol, which in any case is much above the limit of 30 mg prescribed under the Motor Vehicles

2
2005 (1) JCC 261

3
Sec.185 of Motor Vehicle Act- Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. Whoever,
while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,- 1[(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml.
of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or]

(b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle,
shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

4
AIR 1952 Cochin 239

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 13

Act certainly must have affected his ability to drive the vehicle in a safe manner otherwise
mishap of such a magnitude could not have taken place.

The presence of some of the clinical symptoms even at 12.29 p.m. on 10.1.1999 i.e. unsteady
gait, eyes congested as opined by PW10 Doctor T. Milo in his MLC report, it cannot be said that
the accused was fit to drive the said BMW car safely on the fateful morning of 10.1.99 at 4.30
a.m. So it is proved that the appellant was under the influence of liquor and was driving the
vehicle most recklessly.

B-ii) Respondent was driving at an excessive speed.

As per the testimony of PW-2 Manoj Malik, which was also recorded under section 161 of
Cr.P.C. the vehicle came at a very fast speed from Nizamuddin and hit them and also as per court
witness Sunil Kulkarni who in his testimony testified that the vehicle was at a very-very high
speed and due to the impact of the accident 2 or 3 persons fell on the bonnet and wind screen of
the car.
In the light of above facts and laws it is submitted before this court that the Respondent
was in the state of drunkenness which is punishable and he was driving with excessive
speed. Which proves that the accused was driving with knowledge of the consequences so
the accused is liable to be prosecuted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code

II. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS COMMITTED AN ERRED WHILE CONVERTING
THE OFFENCE FROM SECTION 304-II TO SECTION 304-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860.

In the instant matter, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has committed grave error while
converting the offence from Culpable Homicide to Death caused by Negligence. As stated in
first contention that the Respondent was having the knowledge of his action, which ultimately
lead to an offence.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 14

In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan5 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that, where an accused was not holding a valid motor driving licence and was under
influence of alcohol, he would be held to have committed offence under Section 304II of the
Indian Penal Code, not Section 304-A.
And later on, in the matter of Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra6 the Apex Court
held that, where an accused involved in commission of such offence was driving a vehicle in a
drunken condition and has to be dealt with severely so as to send proper and correct message to
the society.
Therefore, in the light of abovementioned laws and facts of the cases, the Respondent
should be held liable for the offence committed under section 304-II and the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has committed an grave erred while converting the offence from Culpable
Homicide not amount to murder to Death Caused by the Negligence.

5
(2004) 1 SCC 525
6
(2012) 2 SCC 648

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore in the lights of the facts stated, authorities cited, arguments advanced, the appellants
humbly requests the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge and declare that:-

1. The Respondent has committed an offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The order passed by the High Court of Patna is arbitrary, bad, perverse, devoid of law
and is against the facts of the matter and therefore is liable to be set aside.

Or, pass any order, decree as the Court may deem fit in the lights of Justice, Equity & Good
Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS 2014, 13th October

PRAVEEN JHALANI

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-