Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Versus
Kamal Respondent
Versus
State Respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.No. Particulars
1. Index of Authorities
2. Statement of Jurisdiction
3. Statement of Facts
4. Statement of issues
5. Summary of Arguments
6. Advanced Arguments or
Pleadings
7. Prayer
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. STATUTES:
The Indian Penal Code 1860
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
The Indian Evidence Act 1876
2. JUDICIAL DECISIONS:
Bhupan v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2002 SC 820
(Page 303 Indian Evidence Act, Chapter – of the Relevancy of facts)
The appellant has submitted Appeal under section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 challenging other Trail Court. The Respondent humbly submits
that the Appeal is not maintainable and challenges the assertions made in appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sher Singh (Appellant 1), was a farmer living with his wife Sunita, Son
Rajender (Appellant 2), Daughter Reena and Brother Sanjay Singh
(Appellant 3).
Deceased Kamal was a boy living in the village and was working 12 KM
away from the village in Jhajjar. He was the only son and sole bread earner
of his family.
Sher Singh borrowed a debt of Rs. 20000/= from Kamal and needed some
time to repay the debt.
On 8th August 2010, Sher Singh invited Kamal to his house to collect the
Debt money. Kamal reached around 8.30 PM at their house.
Sher Singh started abusing Kamal. Rajender brought lathi and gave blows
on the legs of Kamal. Sanjay grabed the lathi and started beating Kamal and
gave blows on Kamal’s head and chest.
Kamal was seriously injured and was taken to hospital by the villagers
where he succumbed to his injuries and died 3 days later.
Postmortem report confirmed that Kamal suffered grievous injuries on
head and fractures of 3 ribs which resulted in death of Kamal.
First Information report was registered u/s 307 read with section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. And after the death of Kamal, Section 302 was added in
the FIR.
The Session Court convicted Appellant 1, 2 and 3 u/s 302 read with section
34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment for having committed the
murder of Kamal.
The Accused appealed against their conviction in Honorable High Court of
Himachal Pradesh.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Argument No. 1:
The appeal under this Honorable Court is not maintainable since the Trial Court
investigated the various facts and evidences in detail.
There stands no merit for admitting the appeal. Hence it is submitted that this
Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss this appeal.
Argument No. 2:
There are clear evidences which are showing that all the three accused persons
had the common intention to commit murder and this was also confirmed in the
dying declaration of the deceased victim.
Argument No. 3:
As per the dying declaration of the deceased, there was no such act on his part
that amounted to grave and sudden provocation as claimed by the accused.
Argument No. 4:
The Session Court was justified in sentencing the appellants with life
imprisonment for the act committed by them.
Advanced Arguments or Pleadings
1. That the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Trial
Court is not maintainable.
The respondent humble submits that the appeal filed by the appellant
challenging the order of the Trial Court is not maintainable u/s 374 (2) of
The Code of Criminal Procedure.
Therefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed that the Honorable Court may be pleased to hold adjudge and
declare that:
i. The present appeal is not maintainable.
ii. And upheld the decision of Trial Court.
iii. Any order or any other relief that this honorable Court may deem fir in
the interest of justice, equity and good concise.