Intra Moot Court Competition 2022 - Memorial on Behalf of Prosecution, Study notes of Human Rights

Download Intra Moot Court Competition 2022 - Memorial on Behalf of Prosecution and more Study notes Human Rights in PDF only on Docsity!

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 1

Team Code: PITVGU

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2022

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JAIPUR

C.C. NO. 100 of 2022

KANUPRIYA.....................................................................................................(PROSECUTION)

V.

RACHIT AND ORS..........................................................................................(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTIONS 498A, 325, 504 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION DRAWN AND FILED BY THE

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Charge-01: Whether Mr. Rachit and his mother are guilty under Section 498A of

Charge-02: Whether Mr. Rachit And His Mother Are Offenders Under Section 504 Of

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

& AND

A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

Anr. ANOTHER Bom CR BOMBAY CRIMINAL REPORTER IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE Cr.P.C. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Cri LJ / Cr. LJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL Del DELHI Hon’ble HONORABLE IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE M.P. MADHYA PRADESH No. NUMBER Ori. ODISHA Ors. OTHERS r/w READ WITH Retd. RETIRED S./Sec. SECTION SC SUPREME COURT SCC SUPREME COURT CASES St. STATE U.P. UTTAR PRADESH u/s UNDER SECTION v. VERSUS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

15. (^) Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka AIR 4 September
16. (^) Fiona shrikhande vs. State of Maharastra & Anr AIR 22 August 2013
17. (^) Mohammed Sabed Ali v Thulesvar Borah AIR 1955 crilj 1318
18. (^) Prabhu Dayal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2016 SCC Online MP 8503
19. (^) Mohammed Sabad Ali v Thuleswar Borah AIR (1954) 6 Ass 274
20. (^) Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 CrLJ 134
21. (^) State v. Javed Ahmad Tantrey Sikandar & Ors. AIR 341/2A/04 of 2013,
22. (^) Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors AIR 27 May, 2008
23. (^) Naresh v. The State of Uttarkhand AIR 25 April, 2018
24. (^) Ishwar Pratap Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Home AIR 28 November, 2017
25. (^) Ahsan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 29 August 2017
26. (^) Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. & Anr AIR 17 October 2008
27. (^) Md. Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Anr AIR 4th 2009 September
28. (^) Rambaran Mahton v. The State AIR 1958 Pat 452

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code , 33rd^ Ed. (2011) 2. P.S.A. Pillai (13th^ Ed. 2017) 3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th^ Ed. 2009) 4. Gupta and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th^ Ed. 2007) 5. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure , (5th^ Ed. 2011)

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. SCC Online http://www.scconline.com
2. Manupatra http://www.manupatrafast.com
3. Find Law http://www.findlaw.com
4. Indian Kanoon http://www.indiankanoon.com

STATUTES AND ACTS REFERRED

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

The Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

LEXICONS

1. Aiyar P Ramanathan, Law Lexicon, 2005
2. Garner Bryana, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7 th (^) Edition, 1999

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rachit Malhotra, a Hindu who lives in Jaitpura, is a senior HR Manager by profession and Kanupriya Singhania who is a Hindu, lives in Delhi.
2. One day her father suddenly fell ill and expressed his last wish to see her get married.
3. Rachit and Kanupriya’s marriage solemnized on 10th^ of April 2003 as per Hindu rites and rituals under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After marriage, Kanupriya continued her studies, and Rachit did well at his job and was promoted to President.
4. It started being painful for her to manage both academic life and domestic responsibilities as she was never appreciated for all the work that she did at home and was always humiliated in front of others.
5. Sometimes her Mother-in Law also commented on her that ‘Tumhare Papa ney toh Shadi bhi aache sey nhi ki’ and whenever she told about this to Rachit he replies that she is overacting and it is very small thing.
6. Meanwhile both of them decided to have a family but she won’t be able to conceive and after her medical checkup it was found that she was not capable to bear a child.
7. Her Mother-in Law starts abusing her by saying ‘Dahej toh diya nhi aur varis bhi nhi’. After Kanupriya got a Job everything was going well but on 29th^ of September 2009 her Mother-in Law saw Kanupriya with her Colleague and asked her about the boy, and she said that it is her personal life so please don’t interfere in it as her Mother-in Law many times objected her that she is a daughter-in-law of a reputed family and these activities give a bad Impression of the family in society.
8. When this fact came to knowledge of Rachit, he objected Kanupriya and soon this turn into a serious fight between them and in anger she took a Flower Vase and hit her mother-in Law, to which Rachit slapped her. After this she left her husband home and FIR was filed against her husband and her Mother-in Law.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Sec. 1771 r/w Sec. 198A^2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^3.

The Counsels for the Prosecution most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Sessions Court

(^1) Section 177: Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.’ (^2) 198A. Prosecution of offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. No Court shall take cognizance of an Offence Punishable section 498A of the Indian Penal Code except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father' s or mother' s brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE NO. O

CHARGE NO. 02

CHARGE NO. 03

Whether Mr. Rachit and his mother are guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Whether Mr. Rachit And His Mother Are Offenders Under Section 504 Of Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Whether Rachit Is Liable Under Section 325 Of Indian Penal Code,1860?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CHARGE NO.

CHARGE NO.

CHARGE NO.

Whether Mr. Rachit and his mother are guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860? It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that both the accused, Mr. Rachit and his mother had committed the offense of cruelty by having wilful conduct towards Kanupriya and harassment to her on account of dowry. The behavior of both accused towards Kanupriya are sufficient to cause mental injury to her. The essential ingredients of Section 498A are fulfilled.

Whether Mr. Rachit And His Mother Are Offenders Under Section 504 Of Indian Penal Code, 1860? It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused, Mr. Rachit had committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. He slapped the victim, with grave intensity and such slap resulted in hurt as mentioned in Section 320 with knowledge of the fact that this will cause grievous hurt to Kanupriya are therefore fulfilled.

Whether Rachit Is Liable Under Section 325 Of Indian Penal Code,1860? It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that both the accused Mr. Rachit and his mother have insulted the victim to such an extent that her reciprocal act resulted in commitment of offence. This fulfills the criteria of Section 504 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

WHETHER MR. RACHIT AND HIS MOTHER ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A

OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

CHARGE NO. 01

1.1: It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the acts committed by Rachit (hereinafter referred to as Accused No. 1) and his mother (hereinafter referred as Accused No. 2) in pursuance of their ill-behavior towards Kanupriya have clearly subjected her to cruelty as per the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 4 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’).

In Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P.^5 Supreme court held that Section 498A does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by woman who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative.

Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows,

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(^4) 5 (^) (Act 45 of 1860) Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P. AIR 2019

1.Wilful conduct which caused mental injury to Kanupriya

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients require to be satisfied:

(a) The woman must be married; (b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband^6

The major grounds for establishing the offence under 498A are

The legal concept of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to an offence has not been defined by any statute of the Indian Legislature relating to offences.

Mental cruelty is defined as a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living^7

The supreme court held that for the purpose of Section 498A of IPC cruelty need not be physical even a mental torture and abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty^8

(^67) U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757 8 Parveen Mehta v.Gananath Pattnaik^ Inderjit v State^ Mehta of Orissa^ AIR 2002 2002 SCC 2 SCC 619706

In A. Jyachandra v. Aneel Kaur^9 , the S. C. expressed the view about cruelty. The expression “cruelty” has been issued in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is a conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial ties and obligations. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. In Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit^10 ,regarding legal proposition on aspect of cruelty has made the following observations: "It is settled by a catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. To amount to cruelty, there must be such willful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case.

In Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli^11 It was held that intention is not necessary element of cruelty. Also, it is not necessary that the cruelty should be aimed to the petitioner. Even if it is not aimed to the petitioner but other person, the spouse can go and ask for cruelty because the Ambit of mental cruelty is so was that almost everything is included in it. If we go through different acts we find cruelty to be aim to the petitioner but this is for sure that if it hurt it caused to a person to whom the petitioner is related, and then it also a case of cruelty to the petitioner and this is laid down in number of decisions.

In Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi^12 the court held that the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affair the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been a deliberate or willful ill-treatment.

The Supreme Court held that what constitutes mental cruelty will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and deleterious effect of it in the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home^13

(^910) A. Jyachandra v. Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SCW 163 (^11) Neelu KohliVinita^ Saxena vs. v. Naveen^ Pankaj Kohli^ Pandit AIR^ AIR2006 SC^2006 1675 3 SCC^778

2. Harassment on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh^14 ,the Supreme Court observed that no uniform standard can be laid down for guidance with regard to mental cruelty. The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a lengthy period, where relationship has deteriorated to an extent that, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with other party any longer. In reference to above mentioned cases it is well established that mental cruelty comes within the purview of Section 498A and Kanupriya has been subjected to the same.

Analysis of this section shows that this law deals with four types of cruelty:

 Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide,  Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman,  Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some property or  Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.

In order to prove that Kanupriya was subjected to harassment which ultimately led to cruelty the counsel would like to bring to the notice of Hon’ble Court the statements used by the Accused No. 2 “ Dahej toh diya nhi aur varis bhi nhi diya ”. This statement fulfills the necessary ingredients of harassment that Kanupriya’s father was unable to yield the demand of dowry and she was harassed for same.

Relying on the aforesaid cases and arguments, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that both the accused are guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code

(^14) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)4 SCC 511

WHETHER MR. RACHIT AND HIS MOTHER ARE OFFENDERS UNDER SECTION

504 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

CHARGE NO. 02

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Rachit and his mother intended to dishonor Kanupriya. Section 504 of IPC reads as follows

Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. — Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 504 of IPC states that:  There must be an intentional insult.  Insult must be offered by words or conduct  The insult must provoke to cause breach of peace or commit an offence This section provides a remedy for using abusive and insulting language. Abusive language which may lead to breach of the public peace is not an offence. There must be an intentional insult. Insult which may be offered by words or conduct. If the insult is of such nature that it may give provocation which might rouse a man to act either to break or the public peace or to commit any other offence, the offence is committed^15. The offence contemplated in Section 504 is a serious one. It is obviously intended to deal with persons who are responsible for breaches of peace of the commission of offences as those who openly abet or incite them.

The law makes punishable the insulting provocation which, under ordinary circumstances, would cause a breach of the peace to be committed, and the offender is not protected from the consequences of his

• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-
  •  Table of Contents 4-
  •  Books
  •  Websites
  •  Statutes
  •  Lexicons
• Statement of Facts
• Statement of Jurisdiction
• Statement of Charges
• Summary of Arguments
• Arguments Advanced 12- - 12- Indian Penal Code, 1860? - 16- Indian Penal Code, 1860?
• Charge-03: Whether Rachit Is Liable Under Section 325 Of Indian Penal Code,1860? 20-
• Prayer
  • 1. Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P. AIR^30 April, S. NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION
  • 2. U. Suvetha v. State AIR (2009) 6 SCC
  • 3. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002 SCC
  • 4. Gananath Pattnaik v State of Orissa AIR 2002 2 SCC
  • 5. A. Jyachandra v. Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SCW
  • 6. Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit AIR 2006 3 SCC
  • 7. Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli AIR 2006 SC
  • 8. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 1 SCC
  • 9. Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit AIR 2006 3 SCC
• 10. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh AIR (2007)4 SCC
• 11. Surendra prasad vs. State of U.P. AIR
• 12. Vikram Johar v State of U.P. AIR 26 April
      • 236:1960 CrLJ 13. Abraham v State of Kerala AIR 1960 Ker
• 14. S.Gopal, AIR 1953 CrLJ
• 3 The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of
• 1213 Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 1 SCC
  • Supra
• 15 Surendra prasad vs. State of U.P. AIR

act because the person insulted does not take the provocation in the manner intended, or exercises self- control, or being terrified by the insult, or overpowered by the personality of the offender, does not actually break the peace or commits another offence^16.

In judging whether a particular abusive language comes within the mischief of section 504, I.P.C, the Court has to see what the effect of the language would be used in ordinary course of events and not how the complainant actually behaved on being abused. Merely because a man of cool temperament did not react violently or break the peace it does not follow that no offence was committed by the accused.

SCOPE AND OBJECT

For an offence under S. 504, what is material is not the reaction of the complainant which might vary according to the sensitiveness of the individual insulted but the intention of the offender to provoke or his knowledge that he is likely to provoke the person insulted to commit an offence^17

An insult which under ordinary circumstances would be likely to provoke the person insulted to cause a breach of peace is within the provisions of the section although the person insulted may have been reduced to a state of abject terror so as to render improbable that he would commit a breach of peace.

The Court has merely to consider the standard of an ordinary reasonable man to see if the insult offered is such as is ordinarily sufficient to arouse passions and provoke retaliation by words or deed. If the abusive language used or insult hurled, in the ordinary circumstances are such that they ordinarily

provoke the man or woman of his or her position to commit a breach of the peace. The mere forbearance of the person insulted being provoked is not sufficient to protect the offender.^18

If the insult hurled or abusive language used intentionally is of such a nature as would, in the ordinary course of events, lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit the offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of S. 504 I.P.C., merely because the insulted person

(^1617) Vikram johar v State of U.P. AIR 2019 18 AbrahamS.Gopal, 1953 CrLJv^ State^ of^ Kerala, 744 AIR^1960 Ker^ 236:1960 CrLJ^910

exercised self-control or being terrified by the insult, or overawed by the personality of the offender did not actually break the peace or commit any offence^19.

In dealing with section 504 the Court has not to judge the temperament or the idiosyncrasies of the individual concerned. It should try to find out what in the ordinary circumstances would have been the effect of the abusive language used. Where there is no doubt that the abusive language used might ordinarily have resulted in broken limbs or at least in an affray and consequent breach of the peace an offence under Section 504 is committed. Intention of the accused to provoke break of public peace is enough to constitute u/s. 504 I.P.C. It is immaterial whether there occurred actual break of public peace^20.

In the case of Mohammed Sabed Ali v Thulesvar Borah^21 , the court held that the requirement of section 504 of IPC is there should be an intentional insult which causes provocation. The provocation should be intended or known to be likely to cause the person insulted to commit breach or commit any other offence.

The accused are liable under Sec. 504 1PC as the act or omission of the petitioner beating by the shoes in presence of a large number of persons (Barati) dishonored the victim.^22. Similarly, Kanupriya was insulted quite a few times during the span of her marriage.

The counsel would to bring to the notice of the court of the instances where Kanupriya was insulted,

 She was criticized for being dedicated towards her studies and not able to do household chores  She was humiliated in front of others even after giving her very best to her marriage.  Her father was criticized was not fulfilling the demand of Kanupriya’s in-laws.  She was criticized for not been able to bear child despite of the fact that Rachit’s medical test was never done.

(^1920) Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2012 21 Fiona shrikhandeMohammed Sabed^ vs. Ali^ State v Thulesvar^ of^ Maharastra Borah 1955 Anr^ AIR CriLJ^2013 1318 (^22) Prabhu Dayal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8503

 Again, Kanupriya was criticized on the ground that her father was unable to fulfill dowry demands.  Her character was assassinated for being in friendship with a boy.

These small instances of insult resulted in giving provocation to Kanupriya to hurt her Mother-in-law with flower vase.

Ergo if an intentional insult is of such a nature that it might give provocation which may lead to hamper public peace or commit any other offense, the offense under this section is committed.^23.

Relying on the aforesaid cases and arguments, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that both the accused are guilty under Section 504 of IPC.

(^23) Mohammed Sabad Ali v Thuleswar Borah, (1954) 6 Ass 274

WHETHER RACHIT IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 325 OF INDIAN PENAL

CODE,1860?

CHARGE NO. 03

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Rachit is guilty of the offence under Sec. 325 IPC. Section 325 reads as follows,

“Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. — Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”

For the purpose of Section 325 grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320

Grievous hurt - The following kinds of hurt only are designated as

“grievous”: (First) — Emasculation. (Secondly) —Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

(Thirdly) — Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,

(Fourthly) —Privation of any member or joint.

(Fifthly) — Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. (Sixthly) — Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

(Seventhly) —Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) —Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

The ingredients to constitute and offence under section 325 are been encapsulated as follows :  An act that caused grievous hurt, or  A hurt which he causes is grievous hurt.

The counsel would like to bring to the notice of the court that the intensity with which a man slaps to woman cannot be considered as a normal act of hurt. The act of striking the flat surface of hand on Kanupriya by Rachit was an simple act of hurt but it resulted brutal injuries on Kanupriya’s face.

Thus, one of the principles of causing grievous hurt as enumerated by Section 322 which says any act of hurt which causes grievous hurt is also the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt is fulfilled by act of Rachit.

In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan^24 , where the eardrum was affected, as the injury was inflicted by a high-speed slap, it was held that the act amounted to permanent disfiguration within the meaning of this clause and hence the injury was grievous. Similarly, the slap of Rachit inflicted severe injury on the area around Kanupriya’s eyes which led to defect in vision of Kanupriya. In State v. Javed Ahmad Tantrey Sikandar & Ors.^25 , the accused punched the victim on her stomach, thus causing grievous hurt. The court observed that the victim is liable under section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt..

The court convicted u/s. 325 i.e. punishment for causing grievous hurt as 5 ribs of the victim were found fractured and the spleen was ruptured, which falls under the description of grievous hurt u/s.

320. The court also applied S. 322 i.e. voluntarily causing grievous hurt^26

Relating this with our case, Rachit slapped Kanupriya on her face multiple times which caused injury to Kanupriya and she fell unconscious. Therefore, it can be concluded that Rachit, by slapping to Kanupriya has committed the offence and is punishable under Sec. 325 IPC.

A person is said to voluntarily cause grievous hurt when the hurt caused by him, is of the nature of any of the kinds of hurts enumerated in section 320, IPC, and he intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt.

Relying on the aforesaid cases and arguments, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Accused No. 1 is guilty under section 325 of IPC.

(^2425) Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan 1968 CrLJ 134 26 StateRambaran Mahton v.^ v. Javed Ahmad^ TheTantrey State^ Sikandar AIR 1958 Pat^ & Ors. 452 Case^ no.^ 341/2A/04^ of^ 2013,^ Delhi^ District^ Court