IN THE

HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

Bhanwar Singh and ors.

v.

State of M.P

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

Ishu Deshmukh

ROLL NO. 81

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................4

o TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................4

o ACTS, LEGISLATIONS AND STATUTES........................................................4

o BOOKS.....................................................................................................4

 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………..5

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED.......................................................................................6

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................................................7

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………...........8

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................12

2
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sec. Section

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Etc. etcetra

H.C. High Court

S.C. Supreme Court

v. versus

Vol. Volume

u/s. under section

Ext. Extension

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

3
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS / STATUTES / LEGISLATIONS:

 India Penal Code, 1860

CASES:

Charan Singh v. State of U.P

Sone Lal v. State of U.P.

BOOKS

1. INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, M.P. JAIN, 6THedn., Lexis Nexis,

ButterworthsWadhwa, 2010.

2. Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 34th edition, Lexis Nexis

4
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Appellant Bhanwar Singh is the tractor driver. The incident occurred at about 02.30
p.m. on 25.10.1984 in a village known as Kantharia. It was alleged that when Shivnath Singh
along with Ram Pratap Singh Prem Singh (deceased) and Bhom Singh , accused persons
Mohan Singh, Manohar Singh,, Kripal Singh, Laxman Singh and Karan Singh were 3 also
sitting nearby, abuses were exchanged between both the parties.

2. Kripal Singh Bhupendra Singh and Bhopal Singh and Kuber Singh armed with 12 bore
guns at that time came from the old village of Kanthariya on a tractor.

3. The said tractor was driven by Appellant. Laxman Singh is said to have been armed with
dhariya, Manohar Singh was having spear and stone and other accused were said to have
been armed with lathis. When Jaswant Singh asked the accused persons not to quarrel,
Manohar Singh pelted stone causing injury on his head, whereupon he fell down on the
ground. Thereafter, Shyam Singh and Kripal Singh (A-12) caused injuries to him by a
dhariya. Other accused persons are also said to have assaulted by lathis. Bhupendra Singh (A-
17) is said to have fired a gun shot to the chest of Prem Singh and Kripal Singh (A-16) as
well as Kuber Singh are also said to have fired shots at Bhom Singh, Meharban Singh (PW-
22) and Babu Lal (PW-23).

Laxman Singh is said to have been armed with dhariya, Manohar Singh was having spear and
stone and other accused were said to have been armed with lathis. When Jaswant Singh asked
the accused persons not to quarrel, Manohar Singh pelted stone causing injury on his head,
whereupon he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Shyam Singh and Kripal Singh (A-12)
caused injuries to him by a dhariya. Other accused persons are also said to have assaulted by
lathis. Bhupendra Singh (A-17) is said to have fired a gun shot to the chest of Prem Singh and
Kripal Singh (A-16) as well as Kuber Singh are also said to have fired shots at Bhom Singh,
Meharban Singh (PW-22) and Babu Lal (PW-23). During the incident Hakam Singh (PW-
17), Ram Pratap Singh, Rajendra Singh (PW-20), Bhupendra Singh (PW-21), Meharban
Singh and Bharat Singh (PW-24) are said to have suffered injuries.

5
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Whether the Appellants are liable for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149
of IPC?

2. Whether Appellants are liable under Section 147 and 148 of IPC?

3. Whether the Appellants are liable for Exception of Private Defence under Section 96
and 97 of IPC?

6
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION: The Appellants are liable for murder under Section 302
read with Section 149 of IPC

The Appellants Bhanwar Singh and ors assembled unlawfully in village known as Kantharia
within the jurisdiction of Jharda Police Station. They were responsible to shoot Prem Singh
and alledgely killing him. Hence they satisfy the offence booked under 302 of IPC.

CONTENTION II: The Appellants are liable under Section 147 and 148
of IPC

Since to be booked under section 147 and 148 of IPC , Appellants must involved in the acts
define Section 146. Rioting :-Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or
by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every
member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting, and here all the appellants were
assembled to use force and violence according to the facts.

CONTENTION III: The Appellants are not liable for exception of Private
Defence under Section 96 and 97 of IPC.

Section 96 and 97 of IPC talks about the exception for any offence under IPC if done in self
defence. But in this case the Appellants were found to be the agressor hence the applicabality
of section 96 and 97 is not possible.

7
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Contention 1: The Appellant is not liable for murder under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC.

The Appellants Bhanwar Singh and ors assembled unlawfully in village known as Kantharia
within the jurisdiction of Jharda Police Station. They were responsible to shoot Prem Singh
and allegedly killing him. Hence they satisfy the offence booked under 302 of IPC.

Section 302 Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall
also be liable to fine. Once an offender is found by the court to be guilty of the offence of the
murder under section 302, then it has to sentence the offender to either death or for
imprisonment of life. Court has no power to impose any lesser sentence.

Regarding the application of Section 149, the following observations are extracted from the
case of Charan Singh v. State of U.P1 :-

“A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is
by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the
assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it.”

“Common object' is different from a 'common intention' as it does not require a prior concert
and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in
view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that
object.”

In instant case the unlawful assembly came together, heavily armed, with the common object
of causing at the very least grievous hurt to their adversaries in the course of an armed assault
which could lead to more serious injuries. Given the circumstances in which this assembly
came together and given that all parties were aware that among them, certain members
carried weapons like guns and spears, even if it is held that the common object of the
assembly was not to cause death, it would not be an unreasonable inference that all the
accused knew that the offence of culpable homicide was likely to be committed in

1
AIR 1967 SC 520

8
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

prosecution of such an armed assault on another group which was not prepared to withstand
such an attack, bringing about the application of the second portion of Section 149.

In this case Prem Singh was shot dead by one of the appellants hence all of the accused
should booked under the offence of Section 302. Hence all the Appellants should be punished
for murder.

9
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

Contention 2: Appellant is not liable under Section 147 and 148 of IPC.

Since to be booked under section 147 and 148 of IPC, he must involved in the acts define
Section 146. Rioting:-Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any
member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of
such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting, and here was just a driver and not involved
in the quarrel of the both parties.

Section 147. Punishment for rioting

Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon

Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used
as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Hence in the instant case the Appellants were assembled with deadly weapons with common
object of causing grievous hurt to people of other party. Hence all the accused should be held
liable for Section 147 and 148 and should be punished.

10
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

Contention 3: Appellants are not liable for Exception of Private defencce Under Section
96 and 97 of IPC.

Section 96- Things done in private defence : Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.

Section 97- Right of private defence of the body and of property : Every person has a right,
subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend-
First-His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the
human body;
Secondly-The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief for criminal
trespass.

In the present case facts clearly establish a common object to orchestrate an armed attack of
such a serious nature that, even if the common object itself was not to cause death, the
accused can be said to have been possessed of the knowledge that the offence of
murder/culpable homicide would be committed in prosecution of this common object, and
such a common object is irreconcilable with the right to private defence.

In this case, the facts demonstrate clearly that the accused were the aggressors, and their
object was not that of defending themselves by any stretch of the imagination. The case of
Sone Lal v. State of U.P.2 :-

"aggressors, even if they receive injuries from the victims of their aggression cannot have the
right of private defence"

Hence the accused being the aggressors could not use the exception of Right of Private
Defencce under Section 96 of IPC. Hence they should be punished under Section 302 of IPC
for Murder.

2
AIR 1978 SC 1142

11
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
appellant , humbly prays before the honorable Supreme Court of India to adjudge and declare
that:

The appellants Bhanwar Singh and Others were liable for Murder of Prem Singh and should
be punished under Section 302 of IPC

Or pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: New Delhi SAURABH BARA

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

12