UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

CODE: - Criminal-12

UILS COMPULSORY MOOT COURT FOR 5th YEAROCT-2019

STATE (PROSECUTION)
V.

ROHAN (DEFENDENT)

SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HONORABLE SESSIONS COURT

SUBMITTED BY:-

NAME :- LAKHVEER SINGH

ROLL NO. 146

CLASS :- B.COM LL.B

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 1

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 2

List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 3

Index of authorities .................................................................................................................... 4

Books referred ........................................................................................................................ 4

Books on indian PENAL CODE: - .................................................................................... 4

Statutes Referred: - ............................................................................................................ 4

Dictionaries Referred: -...................................................................................................... 4

Websites Referred: - .......................................................................................................... 4

Table of cases ............................................................................................................................. 5

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 6

Statement of facts ....................................................................................................................... 7

Questions presented ................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of arguments .............................................................................................................. 9

Body Of Arguments ................................................................................................................. 10

[A]the act of mr. varun sharma does not covered under sec 3 (x) scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes act, 1989 .................................................................................................... 10

[B]The accused kidnapped the victim from her lawful guardianship .................................. 11

[C]The offence under section 376 of IPC was committed. .................................................. 12

Prayer ....................................................................................................................................... 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 2

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. &&aaaa & And

2. Anr. Approx. Approximately
3. Co. Company
4. Hon’ble Hon’ble Honorable
5. i.e. i.e That is
6. J. Justice
7. Ltd. Limited

8. Mr. Mister

9. P. Page

10. PP. Pages

11. Pvt. Private

12. r/w Read with

13. SC Supreme court

14. HC High court

15. V. Versus

16. ED ed. Edition

17. LoA LOA Letter of Acceptance

18. U.O. I UOI Union of India

NHAI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 3

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED
BOOKS ON INDIAN PENAL CODE: -
 S.N MISHRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 12TH EDITION
 PILLAI, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 10TH EDITION

BOOKS ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE:-

 R.V KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 8TH EDITION

STATUTES REFERRED: -
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
 THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULES TRIBES ACT, 1989

DICTIONARIES REFERRED: -
 BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONERY (8TH ED. 2001)
 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2ND ED. 2009)
 WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY
 CAMBRIDGE ADVANCED LEARNERS’ DICTIONARY (3RD ED.)

WEBSITES REFERRED: -
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.judis.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.lexisnexis.com
 www.casemine.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 4

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

TABLE OF CASES
S.NO CASE CITATION PG.NO
1. Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State A.I.R (2004) DLT 915 10

2. Moniram hazarika v. state of assam AIR 2004 cri. L.j. 2553. 11

3. Aman kumar v. state of Haryana 2004 cri. L.j 1399 (SC) 12

4. M.B Reddy v. State 2007 cri L j. 2432 (SC) 12

5. Utpal das v. state of west Bengal 2010 cri. L.j 2876 (SC) 12

6. Rajinder v. State of H.P 2009 cri Lj. 4133 (SC) 13

1990 cri LJ. 5786 (sc)

7. Bhupendra Sharma v. state of H.P 13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 5

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Learned Trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter as per section 209
and 261 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which says that, any offence under Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by the Court of Session. Moreover through Schedule-1 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court of Session is competent to here and decide the
matter.

The Court is also requested to determine the legal consequences, including the rights and
obligations of the Parties, arising from its judgment on the questions presented in the case.

1
Courts by which offences are triable. Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-

(a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), may be tried by-

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) the Court of Session, or

(iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable;

Provided that any offence under section 376, section 376A, 376 B, 376 C, 376 D, 376 E, of the Indian penal
code shall be tried as far as practicable by a court presided over by a woman.

(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by
such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by-

(i) the High Court, or

(ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 6

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rohan (belonged to scheduled caste) and Simran (minor)(belonged to upper caste) during
the days of college started liking each other.

2. Mr. Alok ( father of rohan) on becoming aware of the relationship, went to the house of
Mr. Varun Sharma ( father of simran) along with his wife on 12.01.2015.

3. when Varun Sharma came to know about the relationship of his daughter then he along
with Gaurav his son started abusing them. Mr. alok and his wife immediately left the house.

4.when Rohan induced the Simran to get married and they ran from the house on 14.01.2015
at about 6am.

5. Mr. Sharma filed an F.I.R against the Rohan under sec 363, 366, 34 ipc.

6. Mr. Alok also filed an F.I.R against the Mr. Varun Sharma under the section 3(s) of
scheduled caste and scheduled tribes act,1989.

7. On 16.01.2015 Rohan and Simran solemnised their marriage in arya samaj mandir,
Chandigarh.

8. On 18.01.2015 when they came back to Patiala then Rohan was arrested and custody of
Simran was given to her father.

9. On 19.01.2015 when the statement of the Simran was recorded then she denied the
marriage and told that she was forcefully taken by Rohan and also levelled allegations of rape
against him.

10. During medical examination of Simran it was observed that she was subjected to
intercourse, however there was no injuries on her private parts or body parts.

11. During all that the statement of pandit was also recorded, who affirm that he has
solemnised the marriage.

12. After investigation in both the cases a final report under section 173 of crpc. is presented.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 7

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ISSUE I

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF MR. VARUN SHARMA COVERED UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES

AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT, 1989?

ISSUE II

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED KIDNAPPED THE VICTIM FROM HER HOUSE?

ISSUE III

WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 376 OF IPC WAS COMMITED?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 8

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF MR. VARUN SHARMA COVERED UNDER SEC 3(X) OF

SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT, 1989?

 No Public view

ISSUE II
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED KIDNAPPED THE VICTIM FROM HER HOUSE?
 Lawful Guardianship
 Ingredients of sec 363 and 366

ISSUE III
WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 376 OF IPC WAS COMMITED?

 It was without the consent of the victim

 if no injury marks are present then it does not mean that rape is not been
committed.
 Statement of the victim is sufficient if it inspire the confidence.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 9

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

[A]THE ACT OF MR. VARUN SHARMA DOES NOT COVERED UNDER SEC 3 (X)
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ACT, 1989

According to sec 3(x)2 of the scheduled castes and schedule tribes act, 1989 the statement
made by the person must in “ public view” means at the time of making the statement any
third person must be present. In this case no third person was present and statement made by
Mr. Varun Sharma was of private nature. Ingredients of the offence:-

 abusing of any member of scheduled caste or a schedule tribe

 by caste name

 in any place within public view

So in this case the 3rd essential is not fulfilled because first of all the statement was made by
him in his own house and no third person was present at that time.
Case:- Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State3
Hon'ble Justice V.S. Aggarwal held in this case that to bring a matter within the scope and
ambit of expression "public view" firstly the words must be uttered at a place which is
within public view and it is unnecessary that the number of public persons herein should be
more than one. Even if one or two members of the public hear and view, as the case may be,
the same and the other ingredients of section are satisfied, the case would fall within the
ambit of said provision.
So according to this case law the statement must be passed by the person at a public place,
but in this case the statement made by the Mr. varun was in his house and moreover it is also
necessary that the person who is making the statement must know that to whom he is making
the statement is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes but in this case Mr. varun
does not know that Mr. alok is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes.

2
Sec 3(x) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view
3
109 (2004) DLT 915

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 10

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

[B]THE ACCUSED KIDNAPPED THE VICTIM FROM HER LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP

Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under
[eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the
lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such
guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.4

So according to the above section all the essentials are fulfilled. The accused enticed the
minor girl with fake promises which made the victim to leave the house of the guardian.

Ingredients of sec 366 of IPC:-

 kidnapping or abducting any woman;

 such kidnapping or abducting must be :-

(a) with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled to marry any person against her will; or

(b) in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be
likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

So in this case all the essentials are fulfilled. The accused kidnapped the victim from her
house with the intention to compel her to marry with him against her will as stated by the
victim in her statement.

5
Case:- Moniram hazarika v. state of assam The victim of kidnapping was a student of 8th
standard. She was kidnapped by the accused from her house. He took her to his house, where
the mother of the accused and sister-in-law of the accused were ready for the marriage of
both of them. When the brother of the victim came to know about the incident , he went to
the accused’s house, where he was not allowed to enter. It was held that the evidence
revealed that the accused was known to the family of the victim girl and was on visiting
terms. He developed intimacy with the minor and promised to marry her. It was on the basis
of this promise that the minor girl abandoned her lawful guardian and went away with the
accused. The evidence also shows that on that date preparation for marriage was also made in
the house of accused. Thus, the act of the accused amounts to enticement of minor.
Therefore, the accused was liable to be convicted for the offence under sec 366 of I.P.C.

4
Sec 361 of ipc
5
2004 cri. L.j. 2553.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 11

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

[C]THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC WAS COMMITTED.

According to section 375 of IPC rape is said to be committed when a man penetrates his
penis or inserts any object or manipulate or apply mouth to the vagina, urethra or anus,
without her consent. So in this case also, the accused without the consent of the victim
kidnapped her from her house and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her.

The medical examination of the victim clearly shows that sexual intercourse was performed.

Moreover there is a statement of the minor girl that her consent was not free at the time of
sexual intercourse. it is not necessary that there must be some corroborating evidences with
the statement of the victim. Where the conviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix
without any corroboration, it will not be illegal on the sole ground. In the case of

Aman kumar v. state of Haryana 6

That it is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been victim of the offence of
rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be
acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than
an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former
it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional.

Moreover if no injuries are present on the body of the victim then it does not mean that rape
was not committed on the victim.

M.B Reddy v. State 7 where the evidence shows that the victim of rape was overpowered by
the accused and she was unable to resist due to that act. It was held by the court from the
absence of injury upon the body of the victim, an inference of consent can not be drawn.

Utpal das v. state of west Bengal 8

It was held that the victim was married lady with two children, as such absence of injuries on
her private parts cannot be ground to hold that stage she was not subjected to any sexual
assault. Moreover, married ladies are habituated to sexual intercourse so no injury on private
parts can be expected.

6
2004 cri. L.j 1399 (SC)
7
2007 cri L j. 2432 (SC)
8
2010 cri. L.j 2876 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 12

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity then as general rule,
there is no need for any further evidence except from medical evidence.

Rajinder v. State of H.P9

The young aged girl about 18 years was staying in a village with her parents. The accused a
contractor was laying pipelines near her residence. One day the prosecutrix had some throat
pain in the noon, when the accused contractor came to know about her illness he suggested to
her mother that his cousin was a doctor and if permitted he could show the prosecutrix to his
cousin. The mother agreed. The accused then took the girl on his scooter at about 3pm. And
took the victim girl to several places instead of doctor and when it became dark he took the
girl to a lonely place and committed sexual intercourse. Holding the accused guilty for rape
under 376, the court observed that the victim in the circumstances can not be expected to
have put resistance and absence of injuries on person of prosecutrix does not lead to an
inference that she consented for sexual intercourse.

Bhupendra Sharma v. state of H.P 10

Refusal to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault, in the absence of corroboration as
a rule, it is like adding insult to injury.

So, from the above facts it is clear that the rape was committed by the accused on the girl.

9
2009 cri Lj. 4133 (SC)
10
1990 cri LJ. 5786 (sc)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 13

 UILS DEPARTMENT MOOT COURT, 2019

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts of the instant case, written pleadings & authorities cited, the
Prosecution humbly prays before this Hon`ble Sessions Court that it may be pleased to hold,
adjudge & declare that –

1. The statement passed by the Mr. Varun Sharma is not covered under the provisions of the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act, 1989.

2. The accused must be held guilty for the offence of kidnapping and convict him.

3. The accused must be held liable for the offence of rape and convict him.

Or pass any order, which the court may deem fit in the light of facts of the case, evidences
adduced, justice & good conscience.

The counsels for prosecution shall forever humbly pray.

S/d.................................

(Counsel for prosecution)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION 14