BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL

RESPONDENT NUMBER………………./2023

FILE UNDER SECTION 374 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IN THE MATTER OF
AMIRUL SK………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL …………………..…RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
KR. PRABHAKAR
20211BAL0021
SEMESTER 4
SECTION 1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Table Of Content…………………..ii
J
List of Abberations………………….iii
Index Of Authorities………………iv
Statement Of Jurisdiction………..v

Statement Of Facts……………….vi

Issues Raised………………………vii

Summary Of Arguments…….viii

Prayer……………………………..ix

Memorial on behalf Of Respondent

 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

ABBREVATIONS EXPANSIONS
Hon’ble Honourable
CrLJ Criminal law Journal
Art. Article
CrPc CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
FIR First Information Report
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
VS VERSUS
Ors. Others
AIR All India Report

SC SUPREME COURT
UOI Union Of India
SCC Supreme court case

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS
1. State Of Maharashtra vs Mohd. Yakub S/O Abdul Hamid & Ors
1980 AIR 1111, 1980 SCR (2)1158
2. Ram Gulam Chaudhury And Ors vs State Of Bihar,2001
3. Rameshwar Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir,1972 AIR 102
1972 SCR (1) 627

WEBSITES:-

1. https://www.ejusticeindia.com/case-summary-state-of-maharashtra-
vs-mohd-yakub-and-others/
2. https://legaldata.in/court/read/1456655
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1446471/

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION

In the matter of the appeal filed by Amirul SK against the order of conviction and
sentence by the Ld. Sessions Judge, the Hon’ble High Court of West Bengal, Kolkata has
the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the appeal under Section
374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, being the superior court
within the state of West Bengal, possesses the inherent authority to hear and
determine appeals arising from the lower courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court, representing the State
Of West Bengal, to exercise its jurisdiction and grant due consideration to the appeal
filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice and the principles of fairness.

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.The present appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Sessions
Judge, [Insert District Name], whereby the appellant, Amirul SK, was convicted under
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonmen
t for a term of eight years.

2. On 30/10/22, at approximately 9:30 p.m., an incident took place in Bukru, Ranchi,

wherein the appellant and the deceased, Hibjul SK, were engaged in a heated exchange
of words during a card game conducted under an electric pole in front of Giya SK's
house.

3.In the course of the altercation, the appellant fired a gunshot, which struck the right
shoulder of Hibjul SK, causing him severe injuries. Despite being rushed to the hospital
Hibjul SK succumbed to his injuries.

4.Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the Barasat Police
Station, North 24 Parganas, based on which the case was investigated. The police
submitted a chargesheet against the appellant before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Barasat, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

5.During the proceedings in the committing court, ten prosecution witnesses were
examined by the Investigating Officer, who himself appeared as Prosecution Witness
11 in the Court of Sessions. The depositions made by the prosecution witnesses were
presented as substantive evidence in the Court of Sessions.

6.However, the Ld. Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence and hearing both
parties, delivered the impugned judgment dated 01/02/23. The Sessions Judge, while
discounting the weight of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, convicted the
appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for eight years.

7.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has exercised his right to approach this
Hon'ble High Court of West Bengal, Kolkata, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, seeking a review of the decision and appropriate relief.

Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

 ISSUES RAISED
1.Whether the Ld. Sessions Judge erred in discounting the weight of the
prosecution witnesses' testimonies, thereby compromising the credibility
of the evidence presented by the prosecution?

2.Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of

the Indian Penal Code is justified based on the facts and circumstances of
the case?

3.Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years

imposed upon the appellant is appropriate, considering the nature and
gravity of the offense committed?

Memorial on Behalf Of Respondent

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1 Whether the Ld. Sessions Judge erred in discounting the weight of the prosecution
witnesses' testimonies, thereby compromising the credibility of the evidence presented by the
prosecution?
RESPONSE-The respondent contends that the Ld. Sessions Judge erred in discounting the
weight of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, which has compromised the credibility of the
evidence presented by the prosecution. The respondent maintains that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses were crucial in establishing the guilt of the petitioner and should have
been accorded due weight by the court.
Firstly, the respondent will argue that the prosecution witnesses were present at the scene of
the crime and had firsthand knowledge of the events that transpired. Their testimonies
provided a detailed account of the altercation, the firing of the gun, and the resulting injuries
to the victim. These testimonies were consistent and corroborative, pointing directly to the guilt
of the petitioner.

Furthermore, the respondent will emphasize that the prosecution witnesses had no personal
or vested interest in implicating the petitioner falsely. Their testimonies were given under
oath and subjected to cross-examination, which further established their credibility and
reliability. The court should have considered the fact that the witnesses were independent
individuals who had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.

Additionally, the respondent will argue that the lower court failed to provide any valid reasons
or grounds for discounting the weight of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. The
court's decision appears to be arbitrary and lacking in proper evaluation of the evidence.
The testimonies, being substantive evidence, should have been given due consideration and
their weight should not have been undermined without sufficient justification.

In light of these arguments, the respondent asserts that the Ld. Sessions Judge's discounting of
the prosecution witnesses' testimonies was erroneous and has compromised the credibility of
the evidence. The respondent will seek to establish that the testimonies were reliable,
consistent, and crucial in establishing the guilt of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent
maintains that the petitioner should be held accountable for his actions and the conviction
under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code should be upheld, ensuring a punishment of
imprisonment for a term of eight years.
 ISSUE 2 Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian
Whether
Penal Code is justifiedthe conviction
based of circumstances
on the facts and the appellant of theunder
case? Section
304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is justified based on
RESPONSE-The respondent contends that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part
the
II of the facts
Indian Penaland
Codecircumstances of facts
is justified based on the the and
case?
circumstances of the case. The
respondent maintains that the evidence presented during the trial supports the conviction and
establishes the culpability of the appellant for the offense committed.

Firstly, the respondent will argue that the act of the appellant in firing a gunshot, which caused
injuries leading to the death of the victim, clearly falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of
the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's actions resulted in the death of another individual, and
such reckless behavior should be deemed as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The
act was neither accidental nor unintentional, but a deliberate act that caused fatal consequences.

Furthermore, the respondent will emphasize that the facts and circumstances of the case do not
warrant a lesser conviction or a reduced punishment. The appellant's act of firing a gun during an
altercation, which led to the death of the victim, demonstrates a high degree of recklessness and
disregard for human life. The severity of the offense calls for an appropriate punishment that
reflects the gravity of the crime committed.

Additionally, the conviction under Section 304 Part II is justified based on the principle of
proportionality. The punishment of imprisonment for a term of eight years is in line with the
seriousness of the offense and serves as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar acts
of violence. It is necessary to ensure that individuals who cause harm to others due to their
reckless actions are held accountable and face appropriate consequences.

In light of these arguments, the respondent asserts that the conviction of the appellant under
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is justified based on the facts and circumstances of
the case. The evidence presented during the trial establishes the culpability of the appellant for
the offense committed. Therefore, the respondent requests that the court upholds the conviction
and imposes the punishment of imprisonment for a term of eight years, considering the gravity of
the offense and the need for justice.
 ISSUE 3. Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years imposed
upon the appellant is appropriate, considering the nature and gravity of the offense committed?

RESPONSE-The respondent contends that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of
eight years imposed upon the appellant is appropriate, considering the nature and gravity of the
offense committed. The respondent argues that the sentence aligns with the principles of justice,
deterrence, and proportionality, and it serves as a suitable punishment for the appellant's actions.

Firstly, the respondent asserts that the nature of the offense, which resulted in the death of the
victim, demands a significant punishment. The appellant's act of firing a gunshot during an
altercation and causing the death of another individual reflects a high degree of recklessness and
disregard for human life. Such behavior cannot be taken lightly, and a substantial sentence is
necessary to deter others from engaging in similar acts of violence.

Furthermore, the respondent emphasizes that the gravity of the offense necessitates a strong
message from the court. The loss of a human life is a serious matter, and it is crucial for the justice
system to reflect the value placed on human life by imposing a meaningful punishment. The
sentence of eight years of rigorous imprisonment appropriately reflects the severity of the
appellant's actions and the harm caused.

Additionally, the respondent argues that the principle of proportionality supports the sentence
imposed. The term of eight years strikes a balance between the need for punishment and the
potential for rehabilitation. It is neither too lenient nor overly harsh, but rather proportionate to
the offense committed. The sentence serves as a deterrent to potential offenders and ensure
that the appellant faces the consequences of his actions.

In conclusion, the respondent contends that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of
eight years imposed upon the appellant is appropriate considering the nature and gravity of the
offense committed. The sentence aligns with the principles of justice, deterrence, and
proportionality. It sends a strong message about the seriousness of the offense and serves as an
adequate punishment for the appellant's actions. The respondent requests that the court upholds
the sentence imposed, maintaining the importance of accountability and justice in this case.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments

advanced, and authorities cited, the counsel humbly pleads before this
Hon'ble Court to:
1. Dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and affirm the conviction under
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, considering the evidence, facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. Uphold the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years
imposed upon the appellant as appropriate, just, and commensurate with
the nature and gravity of the offense committed.
3. Ensure that justice is served by upholding the decision of the Ld. Sessions
Judge, thus affirming the guilt of the appellant and holding him accountable
for his actions.

The counsel earnestly requests this Hon'ble Court to consider the above
-mentioned plea, keeping in mind the interests of justice, the need for
deterrence, and the responsibility to safeguard society from such heinous
offenses.

Sd/- Humbly submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent.