1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE - 32

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF WINDIA
[S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ___ OF 2019

UNDER SECTION 379 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1979
IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO SECTION 300
OF THE WINDIA PENAL CODE

STEPHANIE …….APPELLANT
versus
STATE OF SHIMLA RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
WINDIA

1
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

 Statutes Referred

 List Of Cases

 Books Referred

3.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4.
SYNOPIS OF FACTS 8

5.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10

6.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

7.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8.
PRAYER 22

2
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

Cal Calcutta

CLR Commonwealth Law Reports

Co. Company

Comp. Company

Corp. Corporation

Ct of App. Court of Appeal

Del. Delhi

Govt. Government

Ibid. Ibidem

Id Idem

ILR Indian Law Review

K.B. Kings Bench

Ltd. Limited

S.C. Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SEC. Section

3
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
4. Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDUCIAL DECISION

S. NO. CASE NAME CITATION

1. Sita Ram and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 745.

2. Sumitra v State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1550

3. Amarjit Singh Sohan Singh v. The State AIR 1970 P&H 279.

4. Empress v. Khogayi (1878-80) ILR 2 Mad 122.

5. Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions L.R. (1942) A.C. 1.

6. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605.

7. Pathip Selvan S/o Sugumaran v. Public [2012] SGCA 44.

Prosecutor
8. Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India (UOI) & Others (2012) 5 SCC 703

9. Bonda Devesu v. State of A.P. (1996) 7 SCC 115

4
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

10. Suresh Kumar v. State of Delhi MANU/DE/0733/2018

11. Amarjit Singh Sohan Singh v. The State AIR 1970 P&H 279

12. Ravji v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787

13. R. v. Ahluwalia 4 All ER 889.

14. Manju Lakra v. State of Assam 2013 (4) GLT 333.

15. State v. Hari Prashad 228 (2016) DLT1.

16. Poovammal vs. State 2012 (2) MLJ (Crl) 482

17. Amutha v. State 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl) 562.

BOOKS
1. M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1371, (7th edition., Lexis Nexis, 2016).
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal Law of Crimes (Vol. II 27th Edition).
3. P. S. A. Pillai Criminal Law(13th Edition 2017).
4. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India, (11th Ed., Eastern Book Company).
5. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016)

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. MANUPATRA
2. SCC ONLINE
3. INDIAN KANOON

5
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

REPORTS
1. Walker, L. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
2. "Women's Empowerment in India", National Family and Health Survey, Retrieved
2015.
3. Professor Andrew Ashworth, The Doctrine of Provocation, [1976] CLJ 292.

6
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant in the present case has been empowered by Sec 379 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1979, read with Sec 2(a) of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, to initiate the present proceedings in the Honourable Supreme Court of
India. The Appellant most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the present matter.

The memorandum for Appellant in the matters of Stephanie v. State, set forth the Facts,
Contentions andArguments present in this case.

7
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In the city of Shipla, Jones and Stephanie got married on 23.10.2000. Within two years of
marriage, Stephanie conceived a baby boy with special needs which increased financial stress
on Jones. Jones was not able to cope up with the stress and started an addiction of alcohol which
led to constant heavy quarrels and aggressive arguments between the couple. The problems
increased overtime.
2. This situation continued for almost six months after the birth of the boy. For that period
Stephanie hid the ongoing problems from her parents and her in laws. Stephanie tried to talk
sense with Jones whenever he was in his senses, but everything went in vein. On January 2nd,
2013, Jones came home after heavy consumption of liquor, followed by arguments and scuffle
between the couple leaving her with bruises on leg and swollen left cheek. Stephanie eventually
confessed everything to her in laws and her parents. Due to promise of financial aid by both the
families, Jones vowed to quit drinking and concentrate on his family.
3. In late May 2005 Jones changed his job and improved his financial condition. Couple started
leading a happy life. Also, after July 2005, the parents of the couple stopped aiding financially.
Later in 2005 Jones again picked up his habit of alcohol consumption and by December 2005
the relationship between the couple again started to get effected because of constant quarrels
and arguments.
4. Jones again started physical quarrels with Stephanie. On January 5th, 2006, Stephanie decided
to confess to her parents and her in laws. But Jones again started physically assaulting her and
threatened her to kill their child. After that day, Jones regularly started to beat Stephanie and
also had sexual intercourse without her consent. Under fear of her child’s life, she underwent
all the harassment without complaining.
5. On night of 21st March 2006 again Jones came drunk at home and started quarrelling with
Stephanie due to which she sustained certain injuries. The assault continued till 11:00 pm after
which Jones went to his room and slept. However, Stephanie was not able to sleep the entire
night, she was thinking and weeping on her situation, in her drawing room there were series of
thoughts in her mind like about her life, her child and about promises of good life made to her
by her husband.

8
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

6. In the early morning of 22nd March 2006 around 4 am, she took Iron rod in her hand and went
to her bed room and inflicted injuries on Jones’s head and vital body parts which resulted into
death of Jones on the spot. Stephanie then at 6:30 am went to the room and inflicted a hit on the
head of her child which resulted in the death of the child on spot. After all this she sat in her
drawing room holding Iron rod in her hand. Later, when around 8:00 am when her maid came
and saw everything, she immediately called the police and Stephanie was arrested. Husband
Jones and the child was taken to hospital, where they declared brought dead in the hospital.
Police started inquiries and case was filed against Stephanie.
7. During the trial in the session wife was held not liable for murder on the ground that she acted
under grave and sudden provocation and is thus liable for culpable homicide. However, the
Shipla High Court convicted Stephanie for Murder.
Stephanie filed an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Windia.

9
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the present appeal petition maintainable?

2. Whether Stephanie is liable for Culpable Homicide amounting to
Murder of Jones?
2.1. Can the appellant seek the defence of Exception 1 of Sec 300 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
3. Whether Stephanie is liable for the Murder of her child?
3.1. Provocation was continuous and sustained.
3.2. The accused lost her power of self-control.

10
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against
the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court erroneously convicted the accused under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The question of law involved in this present case
is that, in a case involving Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, can an act causing death of a
person be considered under Exception 1 even if delayed by a lapse of time, due to the graveness
of the provocation caused.

ISSUE II: Stephanie is not liable for Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder as she lacked
the essential element of means rea. Intention is absent here as the accused acted out of Grave
and Sudden Provocation which is a defence under Section 300.

ISSUE III: Stephanie caused homicide of the deceased child out of Grave and Sudden
Provocation under Exception 1 of Sec 300 of the IPC, therefore, she is not liable for Culpable
Homicide amounting to Murder under Sec 302 of the IPC. She acted under loss of self-control
and the essential element of mens rea was absent.

11
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the present appeal petition maintainable.

It is very humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, this is an appeal filed under Sec 379
of the Code read with Sec 2(a) of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 which rightfully allows the appellant to file an appeal to the Supreme
Court in criminal matters of certain nature.
According to Sec 2(a) of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
1970;
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) of article 134 of
the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years.
This extension to the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court gives right to the accused to file
an appeal before the Supreme Court on the basis of the sentence awarded.
In this present appeal, the accused has been awarded punishment for Culpable Homicide
amounting to Murder under section 302 of the IPC, which is;
According to Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code;
Punishment for murder—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Also, Sec 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1979;

379. Appeal against conviction by High Court in certain cases.
Where the High Court has, on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and
convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.

In addition to the right of appeal under Article 134(1)(a), (b) and (c), an Appellant under the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 has also a right to
12
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

appeal unrestricted by any of the provisions or the rules framed by the Supreme Court under
Article 1451.

ISSUE II: Whether Stephanie is liable for the Murder of Jones.

It is humbly submitted before the court that, the facts clearly state that, the accused clearly
lacked the essential requisite of a crime, that is, Mens Rea. Guilty intention is a pre-requisite
essential for a crime to become punishable.

Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that;

Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts
in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded
an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.
In the present appeal, since the birth of the child, the accused has been suffering mental and
physical agony which deprived the accused of her self-control and mental stability and lead to
the commission of unlawful homicide with the absence of intention.

A Division Bench comprising of P.N. Deshmukh and M.G. Giratkar, J., partly allowed a
criminal appeal which was filed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC
passed by the trial court.
The convict was accused of throwing chilli powder at the deceased and other persons and
strangulating the deceased to death. The case was that the accused ran a liquor store, which was
objected to by the deceased and other members of a certain samiti. According to the appellant,
the deceased was leading a mob of 50 people, trying to enter her house. Apprehending threat
and danger, the appellant got frightened and threw chilli powder at the mob. She caught hold
of the deceased by her hair and scuffled with her only so that it would act as a deterrent for
other persons from entering the house. However, during the said scuffle, the deceased died
accidentally. The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved thus, the
appellant filed the instant appeal.

1
Sita Ram and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 745.
13
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The High Court perused the record very carefully. In light of the post-mortem report along with
evidence of witnesses, it was proved that death of the deceased was homicidal. However, the
Court was of the view that since the defendant did not have any intention to kill the deceased,
the conviction of the appellant was liable to modified from that under Section 302 to Section
304 Part II. The order was made accordingly2.
The circumstances in the present appeal are evident of the fact that, the commission of the act
was out of depravity of power of self-control. Therefore, the accused cannot be held convicted
under section 302 of the IPC.

2.1. Can Stephanie seek the defence of Grave and Sudden

provocation under Exception 1 of Sec 300 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

It is very humbly submitted before the court that, homicide is the killing of a human being by
another. Under exception 1 of section 300 of the IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if the
following conditions are complied with: (1) The deceased must have given provocation to the
accused. (2) The provocation must be grave. (3) The provocation must be sudden. (4) The
offender, by reason of the said provocation, shall have been deprived of his power of self-
control. (5) He should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the
power of self-control. (6) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the
provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.
In the present case, the accused witnessed and suffered prolong provocation from the deceased
husband. The accused has suffered mental and physical harassment due to the deceased since
the birth of the child, which amounts to around four years of continuous harassment. The
accused suffered grave provocation due to violence, mental and physical abuse, and forced sex

2
Sumitra v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1550.
14
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

which the deceased inflicted upon the accused. The provocation was intensely grave and
continuous.
Due to the continuity of provocation, no question regarding the suddenness of the provocation
arises in this case. The provocation was always sudden as the chances of mental and physical
abuse was constant on the accused as she suffered it on a daily basis.
In the case of Amarjit Singh Sohan Singh v. The State3, the offence committed was punished
under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Held, in the case of Empress v. Khogayi4, it
was laid down that when it is said that the provocation must be "sudden" it is implied that it
should have all immediately preceded the homicide in point of time. Person may by repeated
or continuous provocation arouse another to a state of mind when the provocation immediately
preceding the act is only the last straw. State of mind of the accused, having regard to the earlier
conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in judging whether the subsequent act
would be a sufficient provocation to bring the case within the exception.
In the present appeal, the accused did not perform any major action or task after the last
provoking incidence, that is, after 11:00 pm of 21st March, 2006. The commission of the
homicide of the deceased is directly connected to the provocation and there were no conscious
acts involved between the provocation and the homicide. The state of mind of the accused can
be rightly pictured and it can be inferred that she lost her self-control at the time of the
commission of homicide. A reasonable nexus can be built upon the circumstantial facts and
evidence that the accused acted under Grave and Sudden Provocation and did not cause the
homicide of the deceased intentionally.
From whatever angle the matter may be looked at, the abuse of the foulest kind hurled by the
deceased in the circumstances of this case, was grave and sudden enough to entitle Appellant
to the benefit of the said Exception.

In Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions5, the scope of the doctrine of provocation thus: It
is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation, to

3
AIR 1970 P&H 279.
4
(1878-80) ILR 2 Mad 122.
5
L.R. (1942) A.C. 1.
15
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

have that result, must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self-
control, as the result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death.
Here, the accused, due to the mental agony she was suffering, lost her self-control and during
that deprivation of self-control committed the act. On the night of the incident, the accused sat
in her drawing room thinking about her child, life and promises made to her by her husband
and weeping in pain and agitation. That night was the outburst of the continuous provocation
she was suffering since the birth of the child.

According to K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra6, the Indian law regarding Exception 1 of
Sec 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, may be stated thus:
(1) The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the
same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed
would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
(2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden
provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to sec. 300 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into
consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation
for committing the offence.
(4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that
provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving
room and scope for premeditation and calculation.
The test mentioned is irrelevant in the present case. Here, Stephanie killed Jones around 4:00
AM of 22 March 2006, and the last provoking incidence took place before 11:00 PM of 21
March 2006, that is, almost five hours after any provoking incidence took place. The lapse of
time was not enough for the accused to cool down her temper as she was in a continuous
provocation from a long time approximately near four years. The provocation she was suffering
was so grave in nature that this case has to be differentiated from ordinary matters regarding
Exception 1.

6
AIR 1962 SC 605.
16
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

To be meaningful, the “gravity” of provocation must be expressed in relation to persons in a

particular situation or group." For this reason, it is essential and inevitable that the accused's
personal characteristics should be considered by the court. The proper distinction, it is
submitted, is that individual peculiarities which bear on the gravity of the provocation should
be taken into account, whereas individual peculiarities bearing on the accused's level of self-
control should not78.

The question whether provocation was grave and sudden is a question of fact and not one of
law. Each case is to be considered according to its own facts.9 So, the application of tests
mentioned in various cases do not necessarily be followed in each succeeding case falling under
Exception 1 of Sec 300 of the IPC.

With special regards to the socio-economic condition of the accused, deceased catching hold of
the hand of appellant’s wife and asking her out. Appellant’s wife informed the appellant.
Subsequently, the appellant got provoked and killed the deceased. The accused got the defence
of Exception 1 and was convicted under Sec 304 of the IPC10.
Even though the deceased himself didn’t provoke the accused, the foresaid defence was granted.
Also, special socio-economic conditions were taken into consideration, similar to the present
case possessing special mental status of the women which is worth special attention.

The key element is proportionality. The mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship
to the provocation if the offence is to be reduced from murder to culpable homicide11.
Here, in the present case, the mode of resentment, that is, the act of causing homicide of the
husband was reasonably proportional to the provocation caused. The provocation was long
enough to cause a continuous provocation to the accused.

7
Pathip Selvan S/o Sugumaran v. Public Prosecutor, [2012] SGCA 44.
8
Professor Andrew Ashworth, The Doctrine of Provocation, [1976] CLJ 292.
9
Sukhlal Sarkar v. Union of India (UOI) & Others, (2012) 5 SCC 703.
10
Bonda Devesu v. State of A.P., (1996) 7 SCC 115.
11
Suresh Kumar v. State of Delhi, MANU/DE/0733/2018.

17
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

It can be inferred from the above precedents and arguments that, the Exception 1 of Sec 300 of
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be applied to the present circumstances and thereby acquit
the accused of Sec 302 of the IPC.

ISSUE III: Whether Stephanie is liable for the Murder of her child.

This is humbly submitted before the court that the homicide took place without the intention of
causing death. Mens Rea or the guilty mind cannot be proved according to the facts of the case.
Stephanie acted out of continuing provocation that Jones regularly caused since the birth of the
child.

3.1. Provocation was continuous and sustained.

Person may by repeated or continuous provocation arouse another to a state of mind when the
provocation immediately preceding the act is only the last straw. State of mind of the accused,
having regard to the earlier conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in judging
whether the subsequent act would be a sufficient provocation to bring the case within the
exception12.
Although murder of the wife and minor children and attempt to murder his mother, further
attempt to murder Smt. Galal and the murder of Gulabji had happened at three different places,
all the said incidents had happened in a quick succession and entire chain of incidents really
constitute one continuous course of action13.
In the present case, the facts are silent regarding the course of action of the accused in the time
gap between the homicide of Jones and of the child. Also, the homicide of both the deceased
and the provocation were a series of events without any kind of interruption. No such act took
place between the gravest of provocation and the homicide which would recall the accused’s
self-control. The accused merely sat in the drawing room thinking and weeping, which possibly
added to the provocation instead of her cooling down.

12
Amarjit Singh Sohan Singh v. The State, AIR 1970 P&H 279.
13
Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787.
18
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.2. The accused lost her power of self-control.

In the case of Ahluwalia14, in a way, recognized the concept of battered women syndrome, a
defence plea, raised primarily in jurisdictions like Australia and United States. Battered Woman
syndrome was introduced to help explain the reasonableness of a woman's actions in self-
defence against her abuser.15

According to a National Family and Health Survey in 2005, total lifetime prevalence of
domestic violence was 33.5% and 8.5% for sexual violence among women aged 15–4916.
Similarly, in a case, like a parasite the negative thoughts, propelled by the brutality and
bestiality inflicted by Hari Prashad grew inside her mind leaving the outer appearance
wholesome, it tore her mind and enslaved it in an iron mesh. Faced with the prospect of repeated
physical and psychological torture and the risk of certainty of serious injury, the battered Pushpa
had two options. To kill Hari Prashad or to kill herself. She chose the latter because she could
not indulge in a mutual combat with Hari Prashad. Not being an aggressor, in an encounter
initiated by Hari Prashad, she would be justified in using a reasonable amount of force against
Hari Prashad when she reasonably believed that she was in imminent danger of unlawful bodily
harm from her adversary and the use of such force as was necessary to avoid the danger could
be used by her. The presenting evidence of prior beating at the hands of Hari Prashad in this
case would have justified Pushpa to maintain an action for self-defence and her claim of so
doing was perhaps justifiable based on the apprehension of an imminent danger caused Hari
Prashad's otherwise trivial or seemingly innocuous conduct immediately preceding her act of
committing suicide, because being a battered woman, having suffered battering relationship she
understood that Hari Prashad's behaviour followed a cyclical pattern and based on experience
one has to give her the advantage of being capable of predicting violence where an outside
observer might not perceive any danger. The battering episodes - cumulative terror - had
consumed Pushpa and held her in constant fear of harm. This fear of harm continued even
during the peaceful interlude between episodes of abuse. As the noted author on 'Battered

14
4 All ER 889.
15
Manju Lakra v. State of Assam, 2013 (4) GLT 333.
16
"Women's Empowerment in India", National Family and Health Survey, Retrieved 2015.
19
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Woman Syndrome', L. Walker in his treaties 'The Battered Woman Syndrome'17 opines, a
battered woman experiences the growing tension of phase one, develops a fear of death or
serious bodily harm during phase two, and, perceiving that she is unable to defend herself when
the next attack comes, finally defends herself as her only opportunity by launching a counter
assault on her spouse. But alas! Pushpa could not do so because biologically she was weaker.
Unfortunately, the law would not have come to her aid if she had killed her husband because
the defence of sudden and grave provocation as a mitigating circumstance is based on anger
and not fear and thus though a victim in her life, the legal system would have treated her as an
offender. The provocation by Hari Prashad became her compulsion to end the domestic
relationship and she did by taking the extreme step of suicide.18
Also, in the present case, the accused wife suffered both mental and physical abuse for a very
long duration and had a continuous threat of infliction of violence on her and her child as Jones
returned home drunk every day. Due to such constant severe harassment the accused was under
the influence of “Battered Woman Syndrome” and had lost self-control during the commission
of homicides.

In Poovammal vs. State19, this Court referred to the offence of manslaughter in English Law,
an offence committed during provocation and observed as under :-
Under the English Criminal Law, the provocation must be grave and also sudden. But, by way
of judicial thinking, the Indian Criminal Law has gone ahead. In our system, there is the concept
of "sustained provocation". It is concerned with the duration of the provocation. There may be
incidents/occurrences, which are such that they may not make the offender suddenly to make
his outburst by his overt act. However, it may be lingering in his mind for quite sometime,
torment continuously and at one point of time erupt, make him to loss his self-control, make his
mind to go astray, the mind may not be under his control/command and results in the offender
committing the offence. The sustained provocation /frustration nurtured in the mind of the
accused reached the end of breaking point, under that accused causes the murder of the
deceased."20

17
Walker, L. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
18
State v. Hari Prashad, 228 (2016) DLT1.
19
2012 (2) MLJ (Crl) 482.
20
Amutha v. State, 2014(3) MLJ (Crl)562.
20
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Thus, in the present case, the accused lost her self-control due the harshest of harassment and
grave and sudden provocation which was of the gravest nature and was so eminent that it
continued for a substantially long duration.

It can be inferred from the above precedents and arguments that, the Exception 1 of Sec 300 of
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be applied to the present circumstances and thereby acquit
the accused of Sec 302 of the IPC.

21
 1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. RELEIVE the Appeal as filed by the Appellant.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

22