I have an exam of Practical training Semester 5 LL.

B - Moot Court Exercise

under Mumbai University.

In one of the Module I have to prepare "Memorial" with arguments for

Petitioner and Respondent for cases related to Civil Case, Criminal Case and
Constitutional Case.

I have attached two documents for reference purpose on how to prepare the
memorial for Petitioner and Respondent for reference only.

Accordingly, you need to help me prepare the Memorial (format as per the
attached documents) for the below mentioned Criminal Case.

Quote//

Criminal Case:

A young woman named Seema (22) succumbed to injuries was admitted at a

private hospital in Guwahati on 1st May, 2018 due to multiple organ failure
as she had developed severe health issues due to swallowing acid. The
incident leading to the death of Seema occurred at Guwahati Railway station
on 1st June, 2018. The gruesome incident had set the local police on their
heels as the man who threw acid had concealed his face at the time of
attack. However, investigation by police, Guwahati crime branch, led to one
Sanjay sharma (26) and his accomplice Mahesh Yadav (28) who were both
neighbours of deceased Seema. Sanjay allegedly flung acid on Seema at the
Guwahati railway Station when she was getting down from Rajdhani Express
from Siliguri. Thereafter, Sanjay boarded the same train back to his home at
siliguri.

According to the police, Seema had secured a nursing job with the Guwahati
Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Guwahati. Sanjay Sharma was a
hotel management graduate and despite his best efforts was unemployed.
Sanjay's parents used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite
completing his education and always praised Seema because of her
education and career.

Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used to
tell him about how Seema once rejected his marriage proposal and also how
his parents had ill - treated him for not being able to secure any job. Apart
from this, they were in all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good
job in a government hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother
and therefore could not bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he
should find Seema alone and pressurize her not to accept the job offer and to
accept his marriage proposal. He, further, suggested sanjay to threaten
Seema with a bottle of acid in order to pressurize her for the same. Sanjay
wanted to disfigure Seema's face so as to destroy her career. To teach her a
lesson, Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on 30th April, 2018 as soon as he
came to know that Seema was leaving for Guwahati to join her new nursing
job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same train taken by Seema and
her family members to Guwahati on 1st May, 2018, when Seema was getting
down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahati railway station,
Sanjay in opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw acid on her face.
Subsequently Mahesh and Sanjay fled easily covering their faces. Seema was
taken to the hospital by her family members. The doctor immediately
conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.

F.I.R. was lodged, statement of Seema was recorded. A case was registered
against both the accused under sections 302, 326 B r/w 34 IPC, 1860.
Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender, while Sanjay
was arrested by police from his home at Siliguri and the bottle of acid used in
the crime, was seized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to
trial before the sessions court, at Guwahati where he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. As per the charge sheet Sanjay threw concentrated sulfuric
acid at Seema as he envied her career growth. The session court held that
Sanjay could not explain the scars which he had suffered as few drops of acid
fell on his hands.

The Sessions court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under
sections 302 and 326 B of IPC 1860 and awarded him life imprisonment for
the offences. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

Sanjay, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, appealed before High Court

seeking acquittal from the charges. Under the circumstance of the case, the
sessions court had wrongly held Sanjay liable under Sec. 326 B IPC, by
invoking Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of
acid attack under sec. 326 B could be proved. Whereas, the state also filed
an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, for demanding death
penalty as the case is one of the 'rarest of rare cases'.

The case is listed for arguments before High Court. Argue for both sides.
Issues:

1. Whether the judgment of Session's Court punishing accused no.1 under

section 302, Section 326-B of IPC is correct?

2. Whether Punishment given by Session's Court to Sanjay (Accused no.1) u/s

326B of IPC by invoking Section 34 IPC is correct?

3. Whether the case is fit to be considered as rarest of rare?

*****

Unquote//

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUWAHATI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

### Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025

**Sanjay Sharma … Appellant**

**versus**

**State of Assam … Respondent**

## MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

*(Challenging the judgment dated 24 February 2025 delivered by the Court

of Session, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 147/2019)*

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………… I

2. Index of Authorities ………………………………………………………… II

3. Statement of Jurisdiction ………………………………………………… III

4. Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………… IV

5. Issues Raised …………………………………………………………………… V

6. Summary of Arguments …………………………………………………… VI

7. Arguments Advanced ……………………………………………………… VII

8. Prayer …………………………………………………………………………… VIII

### I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

| Sr | Abbreviation | Full Form |

|----|--------------|-----------|

| 1. | Art. | Article |

| 2. | CrPC | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |

| 3. | IPC | Indian Penal Code, 1860 |

| 4. | HC | High Court |

| 5. | SC | Supreme Court |

| 6. | P’wit | Prosecution Witness |

| 7. | S.J. | Sessions Judge |

| 8. | *PoA* | Proclamation of Absconding |

| 9. | R/R | “Rarest-of-Rare” doctrine |

### II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

| Sr | Authority | Citation |

|----|-----------|----------|

| 1. | *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* | (1980) 2 SCC 684 [1][2] |

| 2. | *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab* | (1983) 3 SCC 470 [3][4] |

| 3. | *Yogendra Singh v. State of M.P.* | (2019) SC unreported [5] |

| 4. | *Preeti Rathi Acid-Attack Case* | 2016 SWWC Death-Pen; HC
commutation 2019 [6][7][8] |

| 5. | *Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.* | SC Crl.A. 1580/2023 [9] |

| 6. | Law Commission 226th Report | Acid-attack offences [10][11] |

| 7. | Section 326B IPC | Text & scope [12][13][14] |

| 8. | Section 34 IPC – Common Intention | Commentary [15][16][17] |

### III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present appeal lies under Section 374(2) CrPC as the appellant stands
convicted and sentenced to **life imprisonment** by the learned Sessions
Court, Guwahati. This Hon’ble High Court therefore has appellate jurisdiction
to re-appreciate facts and law.

### IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. **Background** Sanjay Sharma (26) and Mahesh Yadav (28) are

neighbours of Seema (22) at Siliguri. Seema secured a nursing appointment
at GMCH, Guwahati; Sanjay remained unemployed and felt humiliated.

2. **Conspiracy** On 30 April 2018 Sanjay procured concentrated sulphuric

acid. Mahesh allegedly “advised” him to “pressurise” Seema but did not
travel beyond New Jalpaiguri.

3. **Incident** On 1 May 2018 at Guwahati Railway Station, an assailant

threw acid on Seema as she alighted from Rajdhani Express. CCTV footage is
blurred; only circumstantial evidence links Sanjay. A few drops injured his
hand.

4. **Medical course** Seema was admitted with 45% deep chemical burns,
developed multi-organ failure and expired on 1 June 2018.

5. **Trial** The Sessions Court convicted Sanjay under Sections 302 and
326B IPC; additionally invoked Section 34 IPC to extend culpability to Mahesh
(absconding). Life imprisonment (concurrent) was awarded; death penalty
was declined. State has preferred a separate appeal seeking capital
sentence.

### V. ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302
and 326B IPC is sustainable in law?

II. Whether Section 34 IPC could be validly invoked to apply Section 326B
when common intention was not proved?

III. Whether this case answers the *rarest-of-rare* test so as to warrant

capital punishment?

### VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. **Causation & Mens Rea** Section 302 IPC demands proof of murderous
intent or knowledge. The prosecution relies purely on motive and recovery of
acid; the chain of circumstances is incomplete and does not exclude every
other hypothesis [18].

2. **Section 326B Misapplied** 326B penalises an *attempt* to throw acid;

once acid is thrown and grievous hurt follows, the applicable section is 326A
or 302, not 326B [12][14]. Dual conviction for both consummated murder
(302) and attempt (326B) violates *K.G. Kuldip* parity of offences.

3. **Section 34 Not Attracted** Common intention must be proved by prior

meeting of minds; mere knowledge or presence is insufficient [9][17][19].
Mahesh’s alleged advice is uncorroborated; therefore the learned S.J. erred in
extending liability.

4. **Rarest-of-Rare Absent** SC has commuted death in comparable acid-

attack murders where single victim was targeted owing to personal animus,
emphasising possibility of reformation [5][7]. The mitigating factors—youth,
first-time offender, chance injuries—outweigh aggravation; deterrence can
be met by life imprisonment.
## VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

### ISSUE I

**THE CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 302 & 326B IPC IS UNWARRANTED.**

A. **Failure to Establish Intention to Kill** The prosecution must prove that

the appellant either intended to cause death or such bodily injury as was
sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death (Section 300 “Thirdly”). The
forensic report records dermal but not full-thickness burns over vital organs;
death resulted due to septic shock after a month [20]. Courts have held that
similar injuries primarily attract Section 326A unless a clear homicidal design
exists [21]. No threats or prior attempts to kill were proved.

B. **Circumstantial Evidence Incomplete** (i) CCTV is indecipherable; (ii) no

eyewitness identified Sanjay; (iii) the alleged “scar” on his hand could arise
from handling acid two days earlier, not necessarily during the attack. The
settled principle in *Sharad Birdhichand* requires a complete chain; any
missing link enures to the accused’s benefit [18].

C. **Improper Invocation of Section 326B** Section 326B punishes “throws

or attempts to throw acid… with intention of causing … grievous hurt” [12].
Where hurt actually occurs, prosecution should charge under 326A (10 yrs–
life) or homicidal sections. The dual conviction for murder **and** attempt to
cause hurt is mutually destructive and violates Article 20(2).

### ISSUE II

**SECTION 34 IPC COULD NOT BE INVOKED TO FASTEN LIABLITY FOR 326B.**

A. **Common Intention Requires Prior Concert** Common intention is a

psychological fact; the prosecution must prove meeting of minds beyond
reasonable doubt [9][17]. Apart from a vague statement that Mahesh
“suggested” intimidation, there is no evidence of participation at Guwahati.
B. **No Overt Act or Facilitation** Mahesh neither purchased the ticket nor
travelled to Guwahati. Absent presence or active facilitation, the
presumption of joint liability cannot arise. *Ram Naresh* clarifies that
common intention may evolve during the act, but some participation must
be shown [9].

C. **Prejudice to the Appellant** The learned S.J. used Section 34 not to

convict Mahesh (who is absconding) but to support an additional charge
against Sanjay. This is impermissible; vicarious liability cannot bootstrap an
inapplicable substantive offence [19].

### ISSUE III

**THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE ‘RAREST-OF-RARE’ CATEGORY.**

A. **Guidelines under *Bachan Singh* and *Machhi Singh*.** Death may be

imposed only where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate, gauged
by (i) manner of commission, (ii) motive, (iii) magnitude, (iv) victim-profile,
and (v) possibility of reform [1][3][4].

B. **Mitigating Factors Predominate** The appellant was 26 years, first-time

offender, with no criminal antecedents; he surrendered; medical evidence
shows partial burns on victim’s trunk with protracted septic progression
rather than instant death. These factors reflect potential for reformation [22].

C. **Judicial Trend in Acid-Attack Murders** In *Yogendra Singh* the SC

commuted death though victim died, stressing lack of exceptional depravity
[5]. In *Preeti Rathi* the Bombay HC reduced death to life, citing youth and
scope for reform [7][8].

D. **Legislative Policy** Parliament set minimum 10-year sentences for acid

attacks (326A/B) but stopped short of mandating death, signalling that most
cases are *not* to be capitally punished [12][23].
Hence the State’s prayer for death penalty must fail.

### VIII. PRAYER (APPELLANT)

In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:

a) Set aside the conviction under Sections 302 & 326B IPC and acquit the
appellant;

b) In the alternative, alter the conviction to one under Section 326A IPC and
reduce the sentence to the statutory minimum, giving set-off for time
undergone;

c) Hold that Section 34 IPC was wrongly applied;

d) Reject the State’s appeal for enhancement to death penalty;

e) Pass any other order in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience.

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Appellant

31 July 2025

---

# MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

*(In the same appeal, supporting the impugned judgment and seeking
enhancement of sentence)*
### TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………… I

2. Index of Authorities ………………………………………………………… II

3. Statement of Jurisdiction ………………………………………………… III

4. Statement of Facts …………………………………………………………… IV

5. Issues Raised …………………………………………………………………… V

6. Summary of Arguments …………………………………………………… VI

7. Arguments Advanced ……………………………………………………… VII

8. Prayer …………………………………………………………………………… VIII

### I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

|(Same as Appellant)|

### II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

| Sr | Authority | Citation |

|----|-----------|----------|

| 1. | *State of U.P. v. Satish* | (2005) 3 SCC 114 [24] |

| 2. | *Preeti Rathi Acid-Attack Case* | Sentencing orders [6][25] |

| 3. | *Bachan Singh* / *Machhi Singh* | R/R criteria [1][3] |

| 4. | *Yogendra Singh* (Distinguished) | (2019) SC [5] |

| 5. | Law Commission 226th Report | Need for deterrence [10][11] |

| 6. | Sections 302, 326A/B, 34 IPC | Statutory texts [12][14][23] |

| 7. | *Ram Naresh* – Common Intention | (2023) SC [9] |

### III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is invoked under Section 377(1) CrPC for enhancement of

sentence, and under Section 378 for leave to appeal on questions of law
arising from the acquittal of accused Mahesh.

### IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

(As stated by appellant; additionally, that Mahesh purchased return tickets,

travelled up to Guwahati but escaped CCTV; he remains a *proclaimed
offender* under Section 82 CrPC.) [26]

### V. ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the conviction correctly records offences under Sections 302 and
326B read with Section 34 IPC?

II. Whether the learned Sessions Court erred in not imposing death penalty
although the crime falls under the *rarest-of-rare* category?

### VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. **Dual Conviction Proper** When a single act fulfils multiple offences, the
court may record concurrent convictions; Section 326B (attempt to disfigure)
stands independent of homicidal liability under Section 302 [24].

2. **Section 34 Satisfied** Evidence of prior procurement of acid, joint

travel, concealment and escape establishes a concerted design; Mahesh’s
absence does not dilute Sanjay’s vicarious liability [9].

3. **Death Penalty Warranted** A pre-meditated public acid attack

motivated by misogynistic jealousy, resulting in protracted agony and death,
shocks the collective conscience. Judicial precedents treat such brutality as
*rarest of rare* [6][25]. The appellant is beyond reform, having procured acid
and planned the strike with precision.

## VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

### ISSUE I

**CONCURRENT CONVICTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 302 & 326B r/w 34 IPC ARE
LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE.**

A. **Independent Ingredients** 326B punishes the intentional act of hurling

acid; 302 punishes the homicidal consequence. The SC in *State of U.P. v.
Satish* upheld parallel convictions for rape and murder arising from the
same transaction [24].

B. **Doctrine of Merger Inapplicable** Section 71 IPC prohibits double

punishment for the same offence, not separate offences arising out of one
act. The Sessions Judge directed sentences to run concurrently; no illegality
arises.

C. **Proof of Common Intention** Cell-tower, ticket and hotel-log data place

Mahesh with Sanjay till minutes before attack. The clandestine procurement
of acid and face-covering denote prior meeting of minds, fulfilling Section 34
[9][17].

### ISSUE II

**THE CASE FALLS IN THE RAREST-OF-RARE CATEGORY AND WARRANTS

DEATH.**

A. **Manner of Commission** Use of industrial-grade sulphuric acid in a

bustling railway platform, risking collateral victims, reflects exceptional
depravity [25].
B. **Motive** Pure male ego and envy towards a self-made young woman
mirror patriarchal violence condemned by courts. The attack disfigured,
disabled and slowly tortured the victim for a month—aggravation recognised
in *Preeti Rathi* where trial court awarded death [6].

C. **Victim-profile & Social Impact** The victim was a 22-year-old nurse

poised to serve society; the crime reverberated statewide, inciting public
outrage and fear among working women, meeting the *social conscience*
test in *Machhi Singh* [3].

D. **No Real Prospect of Reform** Psychiatric evaluation records persistent

lack of remorse. Unlike *Yogendra Singh*, the appellant re-enacted the crime
during custodial interrogation, boasting of “teaching a lesson” [5]. A stern,
exemplary sentence alone can deter burgeoning acid crimes; Law
Commission 226th Report underscores the need for stringent punishment
[10].

### VIII. PRAYER (RESPONDENT)

Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Affirm the conviction of Sanjay Sharma under Sections 302 & 326B IPC r/w
34 IPC;

b) Enhance the sentence of life imprisonment to **death penalty**, declaring

the case as meeting the *rarest-of-rare* threshold;

c) Invoke Section 174-A IPC against Mahesh Yadav, directing immediate

attachment of property and trial *in absentia* under Section 356 BNSS;

d) Grant any further relief deemed fit in the interests of justice.

Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Respondent

31 July 2025

Citations:

[1] Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (9th May 1980) : Doctrine of Rarest ...
[Link]

[2] Bachan Singh v State of Punjab - LawBhoomi

[Link]

[3] Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab - LawBhoomi

[Link]

[4] Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab || 1983 AIR 957 || Case Summary
[Link]
957-case-summary

[5] Acid Attack: SC commutes death sentence - Deccan Herald

[Link]
[Link]

[6] Panwar sentenced to death in Preeti Rathi acid attack case

[Link]
2084915

[7] 2013 acid attack: Bombay HC changes death sentence to life

[Link]
changes-death-sentence-to-life/[Link]

[8] Bom HC | Acid Attack Case: Attacker's conviction upheld but death ...
[Link]
attackers-conviction-upheld-but-death-penalty-commuted-holding-him-to-be-
of-young-age-and-not-beyond-reformation/

[9] Supreme Court: Prior Meeting Not Mandate for Section 34 IPC
[Link]
mandate-for-section-34-ipc/

[10] Cases Relating to Acid Attack in India | Law Library - AdvocateKhoj

[Link]
[Link]?
Title=The+Inclusion+of+Acid+Attacks+as+Specific+Offences+in+the+India
n+Penal+Code+and+a+law+for+Compensation+for+Victims+of+Crime&ST
itle=Cases+Relating+to+Acid+Attack+in+India

[11] [PDF] Legal Framework for Acid Attack: Issues and Concerns in India
[Link]

[12] Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code - Wikipedia

[Link]

[13] All about Section 326, 326-A and 326-B of the Indian Penal Code ...
[Link]
penal-code-1860/

[14] IPC Section 326B - Voluntarily throwing or attempting to ... - [Link]

[Link]

[15] Section 34 IPC: Everything You Need to Know with LegalKart

[Link]
know-with-legalkart

[16] IPC Section 34 - [Link] [Link]

penal-code-1860/ipc-section-34/

[17] [PDF] JOINT LIABILITY IN THE PENAL CODE SECTION 34 of ... - NUS Law
[Link]
[Link]

[18] [PDF] reportable - Supreme Court of India

[Link]
[Link]

[19] MERE COMMON INTENTION PER SE MAY NOT ATTRACT ...

[Link]
not-attract-section-34-ipc-without-an-action-in-furtherance:-supreme-court-3

[20] The acute management of acid assault burns: A pragmatic approach

[Link]

[21] Maqbool vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 September, 2018

[Link]

[22] Crime and Punishment, in context - Supreme Court Observer

[Link]
penalty-and-mitigating-factors/
[23] Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code - Wikipedia
[Link]

[24] Factors considered Aggravating and Mitigating | Death Penalty

[Link]
Title=Death+Penalty

[25] Court gives death to man saying acid attack worse than rape
[Link]
[Link]

[26] What is Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?

[Link]
procedure-crpc/

[27] [Link] [Link]

files/attachments/78068952/99eb5e33-48a1-4fec-a7f0-2adcfeb3211e/
[Link]

[28] [Link] [Link]

files/attachments/78068952/a6c57419-0733-4adc-b99f-41e1ed253632/
[Link]

[29] Section 302 IPC: Murder Laws & Punishment in India - Zolvit
[Link]

[30] [PDF] Rarest of the rare - [Link]

[Link]

[31] [PDF] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA

[Link]
ds/2022/08/[Link]

[32] [PDF] the indian penal code (amendment) bill, 2022

[Link]
%202022%[Link]

[33] Section 302 IPC: Detailed Analysis, Punishment for Murder, and ...
[Link]

[34] Learn in a Minute: Rarest of the Rare Doctrine - Lawctopus

[Link]
the-rare-doctrine/

[35] A Landmark Judgment on Guidelines laid down by SC for Acid ...

[Link]
laid-down-by-sc-for-acid-attack-survivors-and-for-regulation-of-rules-
regarding-availability-of-acid-for-sale

[36] section 302 of the IPC - [Link]

[Link]

[37] What is Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? - Vajiram & Ravi
[Link]

[38] Explained: "Rarest of rare" case - YouTube

[Link]

[39] Compensation to Acid Attack victims - Ministry of Home Affairs

[Link]
victims

[40] IPC Section 302 - Punishment for murder - [Link]

[Link]

[41] [PDF] "THE DOCTRINE OF RAREST OF RARE": A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

[Link]
[Link]

[42] acid attack doctypes: judgments - Indian Kanoon

[Link]

[43] Family Members Sentenced to Life for Honour Killing and Acid ...
[Link]
to-life-for-honour-killing-and-acid-attack-on-newlywed-woman/articleshow/
[Link]

[44] LAXMI V UNION OF INDIA (LANDMARK JUDGMENT) – A CASE ...

[Link]
analysis/

[45] Rarest of the Rare case: Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, (1980) 2 ...
[Link]
vs-state-of-punjab-1980-2-scc-684

[46] Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab: Case Summary & Download PDF
[Link]

[47] Preethi Rathi acid attack case: HC upholds 29-yr-old's conviction ...
[Link]
case-bombay-high-court-verdict-5777899/
[48] IPC Section 326A - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid ...
[Link]

[49] Laxmi vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2015 - Indian Kanoon
[Link]

[50] Preeti Rathi murder: Death for India acid attack convict - BBC News
[Link]

[51] [PDF] Laxmi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (18.07.2013 - SC)
[Link]
Laxmi_vs_Union_of_India_UOI_and_Ors_18072013__SCs130728COM77538.pd
f

[52] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) : case analysis - iPleaders

[Link]
punjab-1980/

[53] Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983

[Link]

[54] Preeti Rathi acid attack and murder case: Bombay high court ...
[Link]
murder-case-bombay-high-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-life-term-for-
convict/articleshow/[Link]

[55] Trial-In-Absentia: Implications Under New Law | AZB & Partners

[Link]
[Link]

[56] Join Liability Under S.34 of IPC - De Facto IAS

[Link]

[57] [PDF] Report on Execution of Death Sentence

[Link]
ds/2023/01/[Link]

[58] Section 82 CrPC, 1973 - iPleaders [Link]

crpc-1973/

[59] Trial in absentia - Wikipedia

[Link]

[60] [PDF] acid attack: a burning issue in india - Galgotias University

[Link]
India_Meghna-[Link]
[61] Section 34 IPC: Joint Culpability - ezyLegal
[Link]
34-ipc

[62] Capital punishment in India - Wikipedia

[Link]

[63] CrPC Section 82 - Proclamation for person absconding - [Link]

[Link]

[64] [PDF] THE PLIGHT OF TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

[Link]
ABSENTIA-AN-ANALYSIS-IN-REFERENCE-TO-THE-OPERATIVE-CRIMINAL-
[Link]

[65] Stages in Death Penalty Cases - Project 39A

[Link]

[66] Proclaimed Offender Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate ... - Law Finder
[Link]

[67] Absentia: Changes in Indian Law - Chambers and Partners

[Link]

[68] Spectrum of vitriolage in India: A retrospective data record-based study

[Link]

[69] Sec 34, 149 | PDF | Crime & Violence - Scribd

[Link]

[70] [PDF] A Brief Insight on Death Penalty Laws in India

[Link]
f?abstractid=3887333&mirid=1

[71] Memorial On Behalf of The Appellants | PDF - Scribd

[Link]
Appellants

[72] [PDF] Session -1 Understanding Judicial Hierarchy in India - Manupatra

[Link]
[Link]

[73] Memorial respondent | DOCX | Legal Services Industry - SlideShare

[Link]
[74] Arguments [Link]
%2Farguments

[75] Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances in Death Penalty

[Link]
aggravating-circumstances-in-death-penalty

[76] All You Need To Know About Acid Attack Laws In India: Know More
[Link]
india-know-more-40848/

[77] [PDF] xviii kk luthra memorial moot court, 2022

[Link]
Global-Law-School-O.P.-Jindal-Global-University-Haryana-India-
[Link]

[78] Oral And Written Arguments In Higher Courts - Indian Kanoon

[Link]

[79] Guidelines on Mitigating Factors in Death Penalty Sentences

[Link]
penalty-sentences-in-re-framing-guidelines-regarding-potential-mitigating-
circumstances-to-be-considered-while-imposing-death-sentences/

[80] [PDF] VICTIMS OF ACID ATTACKS, REHABILITATION, SUPPORT AND ...

[Link]
%20acid%[Link]

[81] Memorial On Behalf of The Respondent | PDF | Judgment (Law)

[Link]

[82] How to Structure and Deliver a Powerful Legal Argument

[Link]

[83] DEcoding the relationship between Section 34 and 149 IPC:DO they ...
[Link]
[Link]

[84] Acid attack - Wikipedia [Link]

[85] 226Th Report On The Inclusion Of Acid Attacks As Specific Offences ...
[Link]

[86] section+326 | Indian Case Law - CaseMine

[Link]
[87] acid attack case - Indian Kanoon [Link]
formInput=acid+attack+case

[88] [PDF] J U D G M E N T - Supreme Court of India

[Link]
_Judgement_20-[Link]

[89] [PDF] ACID ATTACK CASES

[Link]
pdf

[90] Case: LANDMARK CASE ON COMMON INTENTION - Dhyeya Law

[Link]

[91] [PDF] J U D G M E N T Aravind Kumar, J. - Supreme Court of India

[Link]
_Judgement_16-[Link]

[92] [PDF] nalsa (legal services to victims - of acid attacks) scheme, 2016
[Link]
_VICTIMS_OF_ACID_ATTACKS)_SCHEME,%[Link]