KASHMIR LAW COLLEGE

NOWSHERA SRINANGAR

MOOT MEMORIAL ,2023

Name: Saba Mujeeb

Semester: B.A.L.L.B 8th
Roll no.: 99
Batch: 2018-2023
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal appellate jurisdiction

In the case of:-

State
………...…………Appellant

Versus

Ravi
…........………….Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page | 2
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Table of Contents

1. Index of Authorities.......................................................................................1
2. List of abbreviations......................................................................................3
1. Statement Of Jurisdiction..............................................................................4
2. Statement Of Facts........................................................................................7
3. Issues.............................................................................................................9
4. Statement of Issues.....................................................................................10
5. Argument Advanced....................................................................................11
6. Prayer..........................................................................................................16

Page | 1
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

1. Index of Authorities
01 Queen VS Gora Chand Gope & ors (1866) 5 South WR (Cri)
45
02 Mehbub Shah VS King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148
03 Hanuman Prasad VS State of Rajasthan (2009) 1 SCC 507
04 AIR 1955 SC216: 1955Cr lj572
05 AIR 1994 SC 1452

Books Referred
01. Dr. D.D. Basu, Constitutional Law of India (8th Ed.,2009)
02.Ratanlal AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code (34TH ED,
2012)
03. Dr. J.N Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India. (54TH
ED,2017)

Statues Referred
01. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
02.The Indian Constitution Act, 1950
03.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Web Source Referred

1. www.legalserviceindia.com
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.indlaw.com

Page | 2
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

1. List of abbreviations
Abbreviations Full Form
A.C Appeal cases
A.I.R All India reporters
A.L.L Indian Law Reports Allahabad series
A. P Andhra Pradesh
Art Article
CrPc Criminal Procedure Code
Edn Edition
Hon’ble Indian penal code
IPC Indian penal code
R\w Read with
SC Supreme court
SRC Supreme court reporters
Vs Versus

Page | 1
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Statement of Jurisdiction

The petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of India under Article
132 of the constitution of India, 1950.

The respondents have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

response to the petition filed by the petitioners.

Article 132 of the Constitution of India reads as hereunder:

132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in

certain cases .―

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or
other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case
involves a substantial question of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution

(2) Omitted

(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the
Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been
wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes of this article, the expression
final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if decided in favour of
the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case

Page | 2
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Statement Of Facts

 Reetu (hereinafter referred as victim) an eighteen-year-old girl was a

student of 12th class belonged to a lower middle-class family as her father
is a clerk in a private firm, Ravi (hereinafter referred as respondent) close
neighbour secretly developed emotions for her
 That on her 18th birthday responded gifted her expensive watch unaware
of respondents’ feeling. She accepted it. On 14 th February 2019
respondent proposed to her for marriage.
 That on 20th February respondent approached her parents with the
proposal. However, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact
her anymore as they did not want that there should be any kind of
distraction to their daughter as her 12th boards were approaching.
 That victim clarifies him that she will not against the wishes of her
parents and he should follow her anymore, but even after that respondent
keep on contacting her through phone, internet etc and later her parents
beat him and asked him to leave
 That respondent approached Mahesh and he suggested to respondent that
he should find victim alone and take her to the temple for marrying her
without information to her parents and further planned that they will
threaten her with a bottle of acid to pressurise her to come with them to
the temple.
 That on 23rd march 2019 as per the plan finding victim passing on a
lonely road. Respondent and Mahesh approached victim to accompany
him to the temple so that they can get married, on victim’s refusal,
Mahesh carrying the bottle of acid, threatened the victim.
 That respondent dragged her into the car and she starts shouting loudly.
Mahesh out of the rage and anger opened the bottle of acid and threw the
acid on her face and both of them fled away in the car belonging to and
driven by respondent leaving the girl in an immense pain.
 That the session court convicted Ravi under section 326A READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 and sentenced him to 10
years of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation
to Reetu sum of rupees 200000 to be paid immediately. He was also

Page | 3
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under 345D IPC 1860.Both

the sentences were to run concurrently.
 Matter before the court:

I: That since Ravi was aggrieved by the decision of the district court; he filed
an appeal to the high court.

II: That the high court acquitted Ravi and since the state was aggrieved by
the decision of the high court it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Page | 4
Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Page | 5
Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Page | 6
Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

Page | 7
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly submitted that there existed no common intention between the Ravi and Mahesh
as per Section 34 of IPC, 1860. Ravi had no intention of committing such an act and he did
not agree to that, the act was done in furtherance of the common intention under sec 34 which
is important to attract this section.
Section 34 of IPC recognizes the principle of Vicarious liability in criminal Jurisprudence. A
bare reading shows that the section could be dissected as follows:
1. Criminal Act is done by civil persons
2. Such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all
3. Each of such person is liable for that act in same manner as if it is done by him alone

Page | 8
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

2. Argument Advanced
III. Whether there exists common intention between Ravi and Mahesh as
per Sec 34 Of IPC 1860?
It is humble submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that there existed no
common intention between Ravi and Mahesh as per sec 34 of IPC 1860.
Original section 34 as it stood in original code of 1860 was “when a criminal act
is done by several person, each of such person is liable for that act in the same
manner as if the act was done by him alone.” Later what was observed in
QUEEN VS GORA CHAND GOPE ND ORS1, new words were introduced in
the act, “in furtherance of common intention.
It is humbly submitted that this case is strongly comes under the horizon of new
words which were introduced into the sec 34 of IPC and intention of accused
must be studied very carefully as stated in facts as the accused can’t be liable
only because at the time of that particular act of acid attack, he was intending to
be partaker with the doer in a different criminal act. The reason why all are
deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives
encouragement, support and protection to the person committing and acting. It
must be noted that nowhere the accused encouraged, supported, and gave
protection to Mahesh, who committed the act. The act sprung wholly from the
mind of the doer. Instead Ravi made it clear to Mahesh that the bottle will be
used only as a tool to threaten the victim for compliance with their wishes.
The case supported to my contention is:
Mehbub Shah V/s King Emperor2
It was clear to the Lordships that the common intention within the meaning of
sec implies a pre-arranged plan and to convict the accused of an offence
applying the sec it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert
pursuant to the pre-arranged plan here in this case it is very clear that there was

1
Queen vs. Gora Chand Gope & Ors (1866) 5 South WR (cri) 45.
2
Mehbub Shah vs King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148

Page | 9
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

no pre-arranged plan and moreover there was no meeting of minds among two
accused .Ravi right from start was very clear that no harm must be done to
victim.
It is humbly submitted that Ravi can’t be punished under the principle of joint
liability because he had no intention to bring about grievous hurt or even
knowledge that such degree of hurt was a likely consequence. Hence there was
no presence of common intention on the part of Ravi in the act of throwing acid
on the face of victim and hence Ravi can’t be charged under sec 34 of IPC.

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention Sec 34;

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. —When
a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be
difficult to distinguish between the acts of the individual members of a party or
to prove what part was exactly taken by each of them in furtherance of the
common intention of all. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is
that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection
to the person actually committing the act.
The essential ingredients of Sec 34of IPC as stated.
(1). Common intention to commit a crime, and
(2). Participation by all the accused in the act or acts in furtherance of the
common intention. These two things establish their joint Liability.
The provision is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive
offence. It lays down the principle of joint liability. To charge a person under
this section, it must be shown that he shared a common intention with another
person or persons to commit a crime and subsequently the crime was
perpetrated. THE APEX COURT HELD in a case that in the case of sec 34 it is
well established that a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a

Page | 10
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the
criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the
common intention of them all. To constitute common intention, it is necessary
that the intention of each one of the accused was known to the rest of them and
was shared by them. It was held in Hanuman Prasad VS state of Rajasthan.3
Absence Of Common Intention
It is humbly submitted that the accused Ravi is being dragged into the picture
for no justifiable cause and for no fault, participation or involvement of his in
the alleged act in question.
It is further submitted that neither the accused had any intention with Mahesh,
nor did he act in concert with Mahesh to commit such an act. Common intention
comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time which need
not be a long gap.

3
Hanuman Prasad VS state of Rajasthan, (2009) 1 SCC507

Page | 11
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

There was no evidence that prior to the incident there was any common intention shared by
both the accused. The said intention did not develop at the time of the incident as well and
therefore. It was held that section 34 of IPC cannot be resorted to hold accused guilty of any
crime.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there was no common intention between Ravi and
Mahesh, in fact he did not have any knowledge of any such intention of Mahesh of throwing
acid on Reeta as Ravi strictly said no for the use of acid to which Mahesh agreed. Hence, in
absence of common intention he must not be held liable under section 34 of IPC.
The act was not in furtherance of Common Intention
The section operates only when it is found that the criminal act done by an individual is in
furtherance of the common intention and not without it. The words in furtherance of the
common intention of all in section 34 IPC do not require that in order that the section may
apply, all participants in the joint acts must either have common intention of committing the
same offence or the common intention of producing the same result by their joint act be
performed. It is however key here to understand that such evidence must be such that it does
not leave any room for doubt against such an intention. Moreover, to sustain a charge under
section 34, active participation in the commission of the criminal act is required which is
clearly absent in the present case.
In Pandurang VS State of Hyderabad4 , the Court had in mind the ultimate act done in
furtherance of common intention. It is submitted that the ultimate act in this case, that is act if
acid attack was not in furtherance of common intention as in light of stated facts it has been
made clear that ravi was devoid of any such intention. He made it very clear that the acid
bottle is just a tool to threaten and no further harm must cause and the common intention
among the accused evaporated as soon as Mahesh opened the bottle of acid for the ultimate
act. It was a sole act of Mahesh and Ravi played no part in it.
It is humbly submitted to the honorable court that Ravi can’t be punished under the principle
of joint liability because he had no intention to bring about grievous hurt or even knowledge
of that such degree of hurt was a likely consequence. Same situation was observed in Lala
Ram Vs State Of M. P5
Hence, it is humbly submitted that there was no presence of common intention on the part of
Ravi in act of throwing acid on the face of victim and hence the Ravi can’t be charged under
section 34 and submits that since the aforementioned two essential conditions have not been

4
AIR 1955 sc216: 1955 Cr Lj 572
5
AIR 1994 SC 1452

Page | 12
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

met with in the present. It is further submitted that the Ravi must not be held liable under
section 34 of IPC.

Page | 13
 Moot Memorial on Acid Attack

3. Prayer
Wherefore, In the light of the issue raised, Argument advanced, Reasons given And
authorities sighted, This Hon’ble Court May Be Pleased To.
1.To declare that Mr. Ravi is not guilty of the crime of causing grievous hurt by use of acid
and stalking.
2. To declare that permission shall not be given to the state to add a charge of section 366,
IPC against the accused.
3. To declare that the High court’s acquittal order of Mr. Ravi should be reserved.
All of which is respectfully submitted.

Sd/-

Council on behalf of Ravi (Respondent)

Page | 14