Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    Q2 Defence

    Uploaded by

    praveenpathak307

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Q2 Defence

    Uploaded by

    praveenpathak307
    2 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2 views2 pages

    Q2 Defence

    Uploaded by

    praveenpathak307

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

    ISSUE-II
    ARE THERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR FRAMING CHARGES
    AGAINST THE ACCUSED?
    1. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that there are insufficient grounds for
    framing charges against Mr Vivek Mitra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’), and he is
    not guilty of under Sec. 302/376A of the IPC, 1860. In the matter at hand, it has been wrongly
    alleged that the accused has murdered the deceased and caused the deceased 's death due to
    the commission of rape.

    2. The Prosecution will establish that the accused did not have the knowledge [A], which is
    an essential ingredient of murder, and the death of the deceased was not a direct result of his
    actions [B], and there are insufficient grounds for framing of chargers.

    [A] THE ACCUSED DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE TO CONSTITUTE


    MURDER

    3. The Prosecution submits that section 300 of the IPC states that “the intention and
    knowledge of causing bodily injury to any person which is sufficient in the ordinary course of
    nature to cause death” amounts to murder. In the matter at hand, the accused did not have the
    requisite knowledge or intention, which is an essential ingredient to constitute murder. It is
    not a stretch to state that the accused had no way of knowing that the injury sustained by the
    deceased would result in her death.

    4. According to M. Anda And Others v. State Of Rajasthan, If the element


    of knowledge be wanting the offence would not be murder but only culpable homicide not
    amounting to murder or even a lesser offence. In the instant case, the accused did not have the
    knowledge that the deceased would suffer injuries after falling out of the train or would die
    due to lack of oxygen to the brain.

    [B] THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED WAS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE


    ACCUSED’S ACTIONS

    The Prosecution respectfully submits that it disputes the allegations pertaining to the charge
    under Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code. It is crucial to underscore the pivotal role
    played by the autopsy report in shedding light on the circumstances of the deceased's
    untimely demise. According to the aforementioned report, the cause of death is attributed to
    two principal factors that cannot be overlooked. Firstly, there were pronounced injuries to the
    head, and secondly, there was an aspiration of a considerable volume of blood, ultimately
    resulting in anoxic brain damage. In examining these factors more closely, it becomes evident
    that the second injury, the aspiration of blood leading to anoxic brain damage, was the
    immediate cause of the deceased's tragic death. However, the prosecution contends that it
    would be remiss not to consider the inherent gravity of the initial cranial injury. This initial
    injury, although not directly causing the fatality, substantially contributed to the severity of
    the second injury. The prosecution firmly believes that the cumulative effect of both injuries
    must be comprehensively assessed in determining the true causative factors behind the
    unfortunate demise of the deceased. he Prosecution maintains that the ultimate fatality arising
    from the second injury was directly attributable to the severity of the initial cranial injury.

    Moreover, in accordance with the testimony provided by Mr. Alok Kumar, he observed the
    deceased individual falling from the train, accompanied by a separate individual leaping from
    it. It is imperative to consider the possibility that the deceased fell from the moving train, as
    this is a matter of significance. There exists no concrete evidence to establish a direct causal
    link between the actions of the accused and the deceased's fall from the train. Consequently, it
    can be deduced that the demise of the deceased resulted from an inadvertent fall from the
    train and not as a direct consequence of the actions undertaken by the accused party.

    You might also like