JUMCC325 Iii Jecrc Udmkmn Moot Court Competition, 2022

III JECRC UDMKM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
JUMCC325
III JECRC UDMKMN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ____ / 2022
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
STATE OF JOMBIA……………………….....…PETITIONER
Vs.
MR. AAYUSH………………………………..…RESPONDENT
UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON`BLE JUSTICE OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted that the question of law in the present case is that whether the HC
have power to extend his inherent power to such an extent that it does not follows the rule
established by law. In the present case, the accused namely Aayush is a major according to the
marksheet of 10th class of Aayush which records his date of birth to be 1st June, 2002 which in
itself is an unequivocal documentary evidence to consider him a major. Still, the High court
gave him benefit of doubt of age and transferred the case to Juvenile Justice Board which leads
to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition is maintainable.
2. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the order given by the High court in
the present case is in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further
submitted that treating Aayush as a juvenile and letting him escape the punishment from the
Criminal law unmindful of the nature and gravity of offence and also ignoring his mental
maturity is highly irrational and has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved
and is contrary and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the constitution. Therefore, the order
of High court should be quashed.
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE CHARGES OF RAPE OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that all the evidence in the present case
sufficiently established the guilt of accused for rape and molestation which was also the
findings of trial court. So, as such trial court’s order should be reinstated because the order of
trial court is justifiable, reasonable and doesn’t suffer from any infirmity and followed all rules
and procedure established by law to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the accused is guilty
for the charges of rape.
I
4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR CHARGES OF MURDER OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the evidence in the present case
sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the murder of Arambh. The statement of
Snigdha & 3 other witnesses has been corroborated by the Post Mortem report. It is humbly
contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Accused as guilty of murder of
Arambh under Section 302 because all the essential elements to constitute murder has been
established in the present case.
II
TABLE OF CONTENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -----------------------------------------------------------------------I
TABLE OF CONTENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------------------------- VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JOMBIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? ------------ 1
1.1 The Appellant have the right to file SLP: --------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Question of law: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
1.3 Miscarriage of Justice: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT SHOULD BE QUASHED

OR NOT? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
2.1 Juvenility should depend upon the nature of offence committed and mental
maturity of the person: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
2.2 Undue sympathy with juvenile offenders will undermine our judicial system: -- 8
2.3 Unjustifiable Benefit of doubt given even when Matriculation Certificate was
present: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE CHARGES OF RAPE OR

NOT? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3.1 Circumstantial evidence were enough for conviction: --------------------------------11
3.2 The Burden of Proof: ------------------------------------------------------------------------14
3.3 Order of Trial Court Should be reinstated: ---------------------------------------------15
III
4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR CHARGES OF MURDER OR

NOT? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
4.1 Actus Reus: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
4.2 Mens Rea: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
4.3 Order of Session court should be reinstated: -------------------------------------------19
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- XIII
PRAYER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ XV
IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abinayna Santosh Sahi V. The State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------12

Arunachalam V. PSR Setharathnam ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Atbir V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
Atley V. State of U.P ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Avishek Goenka V. Union of India ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjinbhai V. State of Gujarat -----------------------------------------15
Bhupinder Sharma V. State of Himachal Pradesh ------------------------------------------------15
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri -------------------------------18
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited V. CIT ---------------------------------------------------------- 2
Dhananjoy Chaterjee V. State of West Bengal ------------------------------------------------------ 9
Dubarai V. Har Prasad --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Esher Singh V. State of A.P ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon V. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------- 7
Francis Coralie V. Administrator, Union territory of Delhi ------------------------------------ 6
Gajanand V. State of Gujarat ------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Gaurav Kumar V. The state of Haryana ----------------------------------------------------------- 6
Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab ---------------------------------------------------------------19
Jagdish V. State of Haryana --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Jai Kumar V. State of Madhya Pradesh -------------------------------------------------------------- 9
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai --------------------------- 3
Kamta Pandey V. M/s. BCCL & Ors ---------------------------------------------------------------10
Kishan Kumar V. State of U.P ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
Krishan Kumar @ Kukoo V. State of U.P ---------------------------------------------------------10
Krishna Lal V. State of Haryana --------------------------------------------------------------------13
Kunhayammed V. State of Orrisa -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Laxman V. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------18
Malla V. The State of Karnataka --------------------------------------------------------------------12
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Mathai V. George ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
V
Mohd. Afsar V. State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 10

Mukesh & Anr. V. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors ------------------------------------------------ 7
Mulakh Raj V. Satish Kumar ------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Nathulal V. State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------19
Nizam V. State of Rajasthan--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
P.D. Shamdasini V. Unknown ------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Pannayar V. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector Police------------------------------------------- 4
Pritam Singh V. The State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
R V. Camplin --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
Rafique V. State of U.P --------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Raigarh Jute Mills V. Eastern Railways ------------------------------------------------------------ 1
Rajendra Dutta Zarekar V. State of Goa ----------------------------------------------------------13
Rajinder Kumar V. The State of Punjab ----------------------------------------------------------19
Rajinder V. State of Himachal Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------14
Rakesh Vij V. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi ----------------------------------------------------------- 6
Ram Suresh Singh V. Prahlad Singh ---------------------------------------------------------------10
Rameshwar V. The State of Rajasthan -------------------------------------------------------------12
Ravji @ Ram Chandra V. State of Rajasthan -------------------------------------------------------- 8
Santosh V. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------18
Sidheshwar Ganguly V. The State of West Bengal ----------------------------------------------12
Smt. Parvati Kumari & Ors V. State of U.P -------------------------------------------------- 3, 10
State of H.P V. Raghubir Singh -----------------------------------------------------------------------15
State of Karnataka V. Krishnappa ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
State of Karnataka V. Mehaboob -------------------------------------------------------------------13
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Digvijay Singh ------------------------------------------------------19
State of Maharashtra V.. Meyer Hans George ---------------------------------------------------18
State of Punjab V Sucha Singh ----------------------------------------------------------------------19
State of Rajasthan V. Vinod Kumar ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8
State of U.P. V. Sattan Alias Satyendra & Ors ---------------------------------------------------- 9
State V. Dinakar Bandu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
State V. Sanjeev Nanda --------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
Subramanian Swamy V. Raju ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
V.P Singh V. State of Pumjab ------------------------------------------------------------------------14
VI
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V. State of Gujarat ---------------------------------------------------- 1

BOOKS & STATUTES
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (16th ed. Lexis Nexis, 2011)
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed 2006.)
IV. Nelson R.A., Indian Penal Code, P. 2905, (10th Ed. 2008)
WEBSITES REFERRED
1. www.judis.nic.in
2. www.business-standard.com
3. www.indiankanoon.org.
4. www.westlaw.com
5. www.superemecourtofindia.nic.in
6. www.scconline.com
7. www.lawoctopus.com
8. www.indialawjournal.com
9. www.livelaw.in
10. www.lawtimesjournal.in
11. www.quora.com
12. www.ebc-india.com
13. www.mondaq.com
14. www.legalservicesindia.com
VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, STATE OF JOMBIA, HEREBY HUMBLY

SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF INDIA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR
APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE 1361 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF
INDIA, 1950.
THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS SPECIAL

LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONRENTIONS

AND ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.
1
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces
VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
INTRODUCTION:
⚫ Aayush is a major of around 18 yrs of age and Snigdha is a minor aged around 17 studying
in class 12th of St. Pascalisca School in the city named Jombia situated in the republic of
Indiana and have been dating each other for almost a year.
⚫ Arambh is their very close friend who studies with them in the same class is jealous of this
relationship because he like Snigdha and everyone including Aayush and Snigdha knows
about Aramabh’ s feelings and often teases him but Aayush was a school bully and had
quite a temper hence no one dared to approach Snigdha including Arambh.
PRE-BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION:
⚫ Aayush,On 31st May decided to host his pre-birthday party for his friends at his home, as
his parents were out of town. Since his birthday falls on 1st June and he is turning 18, he
decided that he will call his friends for a night party including Snigdha and Arambh.
⚫ Most of his friends decided to leave the party around 10:30 and only a few including
Snigdha and Arambh were left and the party continued till midnight.
PHYSICAL FIGHT:
⚫ Arambh and Aayush got into a physical fight and Aayush punched him in his liver and he
fell unconscious because aarmbh started approaching Snigdha and offered her a drink from
his glass which she refused but Arambh still continued his advances on Snigdha.
⚫ Literally Shaken Snigdha had to get in between to stop Aayush and around 11:00 pm and
Aayush took Snigdha to his room. After nearly an hour,other friends left the party.
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT:
⚫ Next morning, When Snigdha came back to her house from the party she complained to
her parents that she has been molested and raped by Aayush after she went to his room.
⚫ The enraged parents of Snigdha lodged a complaint against Aayush and police went to
Aayush’s house and found the dead body of the Arambh on the roof of the house. The
autopsy report of Arambh mentioned liver injury and alcohol poising and forensic report
IX
found no traces of physical injury on her body. A FIR was registered by the police station
of Jombia on a written report by Snigdha on 1.6.2020.
TRIAL BEFORE COURT OF MAGISTRATE:
⚫ After the investigation, police filed a charge sheet against Aayush for offence under
sections 300 & 376 of IPC and Section 3/4,5( r)/6 of POSCO Act before the Court of
Magistrate Class-I, Jombia.
APPLICATION U/S 482 OF CrPC:
⚫ Aayush filed an application under sec 482 CrPC in the High Court of Jombia seeking
quashing of FIR and charge sheet on he ground that accused-petitioner is a minor aged 17
years at the time of incident and at present his date of birth is 1st June, 2004 and the
investigating agency is trying to show that petitioner is a major. Further, the Aadhar card
of the accused shows his age. Therefore investigating agency has not done a proper
investigation due to media pressure and considered him a major even though he was a
minor.
⚫ The application was dismissed stating that no inference is warranted this stage and the
present petition is disposed without commenting on merits about the age of the petitioner,
The Trial court is at liberty to proceed with the trial as per law and can accept or reject the
charge sheet after recording reasons in writing.
TRIAL BEFORE COURT OF SESSION:
⚫ The case was then committed by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the court of sessions
having jurisdiction to hear cases of ‘the special court of protection of children from sexual
offenses Act 2012 and Commission for protection of Child Rights Act 2005 where the
Trial Court accepted the charge sheet and framed charges for the offense under sections
302, 376 of IPC, and section 3/4, 5(r)/6 of the POSCO Act.
⚫ The prosecution produced 3 witnesses apart from 15 documents to prove their case. While
in defense, 7 documents were produced. The statement of accused was recorded under sec
313 CrPC.
X
⚫ Snigdha turned hostile in her cross examination and one friend witness(PW3) also turned
hostile in favour of the accused while the PW 4 stated that Aayush is a very violent guy
and has regularly been engaged in fights and violence, he also stated that once a school
student was brutally beaten by Aayush and he was hospitalized for 3 days.
⚫ After hearing the arguments as advanced from petitioner and accused, vis a vis the material
placed on record, the learned trial court vide its judgement dated 1.8.2022 convicted and
sentenced the accused as under sections 302,376 of IPC and Sec 3/4, 5( r)/6 of POSCO
Act.
APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT:
⚫ That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction order 1.8.2022 passed by the
learned Trial Court, Aayush appeal before the Honourable HIgh Court of Jombia because
the impugned final order is based on non-consideration and non-appreciation of evidence
and other material on record.
⚫ Honourable High Court in appeal acquitted Aayush from charges of murder of Arambh
stating that there exists no nexus between them other than the body being found on his
house and police has not conducted a fair investigation in the matter and for other offenses,
HC remanded the matter to the court below on the basis of benefit of doubt regarding the
age and circumstantial evidence while recording the evidence the fact and recorded that
there exists no reason to destroy future of a young man by sending him to prison and
making him a hardened criminal.
⚫ HC ordered fresh trial with juvenile Justice Board giving the benefit of doubt of age to the
accused and stating that the trial should have been in the JJ board.
STATUS QUO:
⚫ Aggrieved by the remanding of the matter by the HC, the state filed a petition in
Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana seeking indulgence in the matter for quashing the
order of the HC and reinstating the order of the trial court.
XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT?
1.1 The Appellant have the right to file SLP.
1.2 Question of Law.
1.3 Miscarriage of Justice.
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF HIGH COURT SHOULD BE QUASHED OR

NOT?
2.1 Juvenility should depend upon the nature of offence committed and mental
maturity of the person.
2.2 Undue sympathy with juvenile offenders will undermine our judicial system.
present.
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR CHARGES OF RAPE OR NOT?

3.1 Circumstantial evidence were enough for conviction.
3.2 The Burden of Proof.
3.3 Order of Trial court should be reinstated.

NOT?
4.1 Actus Reus.
4.2 Mens Rea.
4.3 Order of Session court should be reinstated.
XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JOMBIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1.1 The Appellant have the right to file SLP:

It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the petitioner have the
right to file SLP under article 136 of Indiana constitution as SLP (Special Leave Petition) is a
special type of petition which does not follow the general hierarchy of courts and tribunals and
acts as a huge instrument for dispensation of justice from open court which provides special
permission from Supreme Court to file a case against a judgment passed in any of the lower
courts or tribunals in India.
The powers of SLP are wide but can be extrapolated from a catena of judgments and provision
in constitution which provides it to be plenary, limitless2, “adjunctive”, and unassailable on the
grounds of unconstitutionality3. Art 136(1) does not define the nature of proceedings from
which supreme court may hear appeals, and therefore, it could hear appeals in any kind of
proceedings whether civil, criminal or relating to income tax, revenue or labor disputes, etc.
The supreme may hear an appeal even when the legislature declares the decision of a court or
tribunal as final which happened in Raigarh Jute Mills Case4 when the SC heard an appeal
from an order of the Railways Rates Tribunal, Madras, in spite of section 46A of the Railways
Act, 1890, laying down the decision of the tribunal shall be final. Not only this but it is also
within the SC’s discretion to grant leave to appeal to anyone whether they are being effected
by judgement or not or whether they are party to the case or not or the party against which the
appeal is filed.5
The power of SLP is considered to be incapable of being confined to definitional bounds6 and
it is not possible to define the limitation on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested
in the court and it is also not possible to restrict scope of article 1367 even if large number of
2
Esher Singh V. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585, 603 : AIR 2004 SC 3030
3
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC : AIR 2004 SC 3467
4
Raigarh Jute Mills V. Eastern Railways, AIR 1958 SC 525 : 1959 SCR 236
5
Arunachalam V. PSR Setharathnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284 at 1287 : (1979) 2 SCC 297
6
Kunhayammed V. State of Orrisa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593 : (2000) 6 SCC 359
7
Mathai V. George, (2016) 7 SCC 700 : 2016(2)SCALE102
1
cases are pending but because of its overriding and exceptional nature, it is to be exercised
sparingly with caution and only in special and extraordinary situations. Beyond that,it is not
possible to fetter the exercise of this power by any set formula or rule.8
The SC in this regard has emphasized that the only uniform standard which in our opinion can
be laid down in the circumstances is that the court grant special leave to appeal in cases where
special circumstances are shown to exist9 which was again reiterated by Chinnapa Reddy in a
case of Arunachalam V. PSR Setharathnam, where the court laid emphasis on the plenary
appellate jurisdiction of SC under this article and observed:
“It is now the well-known established practise of this court to permit the invocation
of the power under Art. 136 only in very exceptional cases, as and when a question of law of
general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the court.”
By this catena of judgments, it is clear that power of art 136 can be invoked in special
circumstances which can be either:
(a) Question of law
(b) Miscarriage of Justice
And the present case at hand fulfills the criteria for both.
1.2 Question of law:
The question of law in the present case is that whether the HC have power to extend his inherent
power to such an extent that it does not follows the rule established by law. In the present case,
the accused namely Aayush is a major according to the marksheet of 10th class of Aayush which
records his date of birth to be 1st June, 2002 which in itself is an unequivocal documentary
evidence to consider him a major according Mohd. Afsar V. State10 in which it was held by
Delhi HC that priority has to be given to Matriculation certificate and in the absence thereof,
to the date of Birth Certificate other than play school. The contentions by accused in regard to
his majority is based solely on his Aadhar card, but in a number of cases it was held that Aadhar
is not a conclusive proof in regard to proving DOB like in case of Kishan Kumar V. State of
8
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited V. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65,1955 (1) SCR 941
9
Pritam Singh V. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169 : 1950 SCR 453
10
Mohd. Afsar V. State, Crl. A. 274/2020
2
U.P.11, Allahbad HC held that date of birth in an Aadhar card is not conclusive which was
reiterated in a number of cases as in Smt. Parvati Kumari and Ors. V. State of UP12 that in
case a person relies on entries in Aadhaar Card in regard to address, date of birth etc., on the
basis of Aadhar Card, under the Evidence Act it cannot be said that the entries in those regards
are conclusive proof of those facts. If question in these regards arises, the source of giving date
of birth etc., are required to be verified in the process of investigation in criminal cases.
Now, when accused is an established major and has already been tried as such by the trial court
and convicted for his offence how can HC transfer the case to JJB to start fresh trial in regard
of sexual offence.
1.3 Miscarriage of Justice:
Miscarriage of justice in layman language means a failure of a court or judicial system to attain
the ends of justice.But, it does not expressly tells what are the acts or decisions that would
amount to miscarriage of justice which can be understood by a number of judgments like if
case has “failed to receive the needed care, attention and approach… and the conscience of
court pricks it or its heart bleeds for imparting justice or undoing justice.”13.There can be a
number of reasons for existence of miscarriage of Justice and the following are as follows in
regard to present case:
1.3.1 There is no evidence to support findings of court:
A court of justice can never convict a person with no evidence against him or on the ground of
lack of evidence which has also been confirmed by a number of cases like in case of Dubaria
V. Har Prasad14 where it was observed that it would be open to supreme court to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact, if the infirmity of excluding, ignoring and overlooking
the abundant materials and evidence, if considered in proper perspective would have lead to a
conclusion contrary to the one taken by courts below. Court’s conclusion is wholly
11
Kishan Kumar V. State of U.P., (Crl. W.P. no. 24015 of 2019)
12
Smt. Parvati Kumari & Ors V. State of U.P., Misc. Bench no. 13419 of 2018
13
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia V. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815
14
Dubarai V. Har Prasad, (2009) 9 SCC 346
3
unreasonable and perverse to the extent that no judicial mind of average capacity can ever
record such conclusion and in such cases court may in such cases can undertake to find errors.15
Petitioner is aware that SC ordinarily does not discuss the evidence but, it may do so when it
finds crucial circumstances have escaped the notice of courts below in order to prevent injustice
being caused16 which is similar to the present matter at hand.
1.3.2 Murder:
The accused is punishable for murder because there is a clear and proximate nexus between
murder of Arambh and Aayush which is that the reason for death of Arambh is liver injury and
alcohol poising as per the autopsy report. Alcohol poisoning occur when the body’s ability to
process and clear alcohol is outpaced by the rate at which alcohol is being released from your
stomach and intenstine in the blood stream according to American addiction centres report.
We are aware that liver is the main organ which processes (metabolize) alcohol. Even if we are
not considering the liver injury it takes one to be a heavy drinker to drink so much as to
accumulate much fat in liver which will eventually cause the liver to scar, or inflammation, or
damage to an extent which causes alcohol poising which is not the case in present matter
because Arambh is a minor, it also raises the question that how Aayush whose majority is in
question according to other evidences able to store so much alcohol for his party which could
have lead to alcohol poising.
In the present matter at hand, liver was already injured which lead to alcohol poisoning and
resulted in death of Arambh. So, Aayush was the one who committed the act which in turn,
resulted in death of Arambh. Even if the HC is not wrong in its Judgement but the fact that a
teenager was killed without a reasonable cause should have taken concern of and court should
have taken this into consideration.17
So, the biggest precursor of miscarriage of justice in the present case is neglecting of evidence
by HC and declare judgement in favour of accused in regard to charges of murder and then
basing their benefit of doubt on this said decision to start fresh trail for sexual offence in JJB.
This in itself resulted in failing of the needed care and attention provided by court to the victim
amounts to miscarriage of justice as held in case of Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia V. Board of
15
Jagdish V. State of Haryana, (2016) 13 SCC 148 : AIR 2016 SC 3190
16
Pannayar V. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector Police, (2009) 9 SCC 152
17
Nizam V. State of Rajasthan, Crl. Appeal No. 413 of 2007
4
Trustees18. Such a decision by HC shocked the judicial conscience of courts by being negligent
at so many points and imparting injustice, this indulge SC to rectify this decision under 13619.
This judgement has led to failure of justness or rightness because the criminal system is
supposed to be designed as such that it includes both, punishing the one who is declared guilty
and acquittal of the innocent which it failed to achieve.
1.3.3 Voilation of Priniple of Natural Justice:
The primary aim of the principles of natural justice is to ensure equity in the economic
undertakings of society and people. It also defends individual liberty against any arbitrary
action. The idea of natural justice is not present in the Indian constitution expressly. However,
it is an element mandatory for the management of justice so, some provisions of the Indiana
constitution convey the idea of Natural justice. For instance, Art. 14 which says declares equal
protection of law for all citizens of India and equality before law. So, if any act is violative of
art. 14, it would in turn, result in violation of Principles of natural justice.
As same has happened in the present case because equality before law also encompasses within
it, the concept of equality among equals according to which all persons belonging to a same
class of people are equals in the eyes of law. In the present case, the accused should be
considered like all other accused of such offence and should be treated same but court have
given the accused unjust benefit of doubt and given the judgement prejudicially. This was
unprecedent and had never happened
The violation of principles of natural justice in itself is justified reason for interference by SC
as also stated by SC itself that the interference is justified when findings are violative of some
fundamental rules of procedure of natural justice20. Therefore, the Special leave petition is
maintainable.
18
Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia V. Board of Trustees,Port of Mumbai, (20004) 3 SCC 214, 244 : AIR 2004 SC
1815
19
Nihal Singh V.State of Punjab, AIR (1965) SC 26 ; Rahim Beg V. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1973) SC 343
; Balak Ram V. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 2165
20
Kishore Bhadke V. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 3 SCC 760 : AIR 2017 SC 279
5
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT SHOULD BE QUASHED

OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the order given by the High court in
the present case is in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted
that treating Aayush as a juvenile and letting him escape the punishment from the Criminal law
unmindful of the nature and gravity of offence and also ignoring his mental maturity is highly
irrational and has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved and is contrary
and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.
In Rakesh Vij V. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi21, It was held that any law or order made in
contravention of Fundamental Rights is dead from the very beginning and cannot be taken
notice of or read for any purpose whatsoever.
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has a fundamental right to live in dignity
and peace22, and by shielding the juveniles who are fully capable of understanding the
consequences of their actions especially in heinous crimes like Rape and murder as in the
present case lead to an alarming rise in this crimes which have impinged upon the right to life
and right to live in a safe environment which are within the contours of Article 21 as held in
Avishek Goenka V. Union of India23 and Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India24. It is therefore
submitted that the benefit of doubt of age given by the high court violates the right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and were therefore liable to be quashed down.
2.1 Juvenility should depend upon the nature of offence committed and mental maturity
of the person:
It is humbly submitted that crimes committed by juveniles had reached large and serious
proportions and it should be ensured that such persons were not given the benefit of lenient
punishment. Even the hon’ble Supreme court `has strongly emphasized for a development in
the current legislation relating to juvenile offender in the case of Gaurav Kumar V. The State
of Haryana25 where it is observed that the rate of crime and the nature of crime in which
21
Rakesh Vij V. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, (2005) 8 SCC 504.
22
Francis Coralie V. Administrator, Union territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
23
Avishek Goenka V. Union of India, (2012) 8 SCC 441
24
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1980 SC 847 (4)
25
Gaurav Kumar V. The state of Haryana, 2015 SCC Online SC 287
6
juvenile are getting involved have increased and was of the view that a time has come to think
of an effective law to deal with the situation where the offences should be categorized as per
grievousness of the crime committed and threat of public order and safety.
The prime focus must be on the crime committed & not the age. If the benefit of doubt of age
is given to the accused, the maximum punishment on proof of guilt is to send the juvenile to a
special home for three years thereby letting him escape the punishment in criminal law
unmindful of the nature of the offence. The said accused is liable to be tried by a competent
criminal court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law as he is mature enough and
has committed a grave offence which is punishable either with life imprisonment or death.
It is submitted that laying down an authoritative interpretation to Section 2(k) and 2(l) set out
therein should be based on the mental maturity of the person rather than his age. The NCRB26
report shows that the rate of crime committed by juveniles has shown a rapid increase over the
past 10 years. It is quiet evident prima facie, the act of Aayush which comprises of murdering
a boy followed by committed rape on a minor girl implies that he doesn’t deserve to be treated
as a juvenile. The idea behind the Juvenile Justice Act, 2005 was to provide immunity to
juveniles who commit crime and takes step to reintegrate them in the society but juveniles like
Aayush would pose a serious threat to the society as he is very violent and involved in regular
fights. In the past also, he brutally beat a school student who was hospitalised for many days.
The true test of juvenility is not in the age but in the level of mental maturity of the offender
and the nature of offence committed. The Juvenile justice Board is not intended for trial of
serious and heinous offences committed by a juvenile. The only exception to this is a child
below 7 years of age as stated in Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The criminality of
those above 7 and below 18 has to be judges by the level of their mental maturity. This is how
Indian Penal code has to be harmoniously understood with Juvenile Justice Act, 2005.
After the 2012 Nirbhaya Case27, Public outcry to punish the juvenile involved led to a change
in the Juvenile Justice Act. The amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 allowed children
between the ages of 16 to 18 to face trial as an adult if they are accused of a heinous crime. So,
why in this present case, the high court gave benefit of doubt of age to accused because rape
and murder are such heinous crimes in themselves. Also, In Bombay Blasts Case28, a juvenile
26
National Crime Record Bureau Report on Crime in India, 2013
27
Mukesh & Anr. V. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 609-610 of 2017
28
Essa@ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon V. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1
7
was tried and convicted along with adults under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act
(TADA) and was denied the protection of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, on account of the
serious nature of the offence and was contend that the purport and effect of Section 1(4) of the
Act must be understood in a limited manner.
In Subramanian Swamy V. Raju29, SC held that Elaborate statistics have been laid before us
to show the extent of serious crimes committed by juveniles and the increase in the rate of such
crimes. Also, if mature and cognitive individuals are given the armour of a Special Law
allowing them to commit offences under the Indian Penal Code without any liability, they
would breed within themselves enraged criminals with psychotic tendencies. Fake birth
certificates would throng and act as a weapon of defence against prosecution for their
wrongdoings. It is against the principles of natural justice and against the nature of an civilized
society. It is urged before this Hon’ble Court that such an accused did not deserve to be treated
as a juvenile and be allowed to re-mingle in society, particularly when his age is in doubt.
Lastly, it is submitted before this Hon’ble court that mitigating circumstances has to be
considered for imposition of punishment to accused as held by the SC in Atbir V. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi30 and age is not a determinative factor by itself especially when they commit heinous
offence and knew the consequence of the offence committed. Therefore, Juvenility should
depend upon the nature of offence committed and mental maturity of the person.
2.2 Undue sympathy with juvenile offenders will undermine our judicial system:
It is humbly submitted that the ban on jurisdiction of criminal courts is unconstitutional as it
virtually ousts the criminal justice system from dealing with any offence committed by a
juvenile. It is submitted that punishment should always be proportionate/commensurate to the
gravity of offence31. The same has been reiterated in the case of Ravji @ Ram Chandra V.
State of Rajasthan32, where the Court held that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not
the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.
29
Subramanian Swamy V. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390
30
Atbir V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1
31
State of Rajasthan V. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 6 SC 770.
32
Ravji @ Ram Chandra V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787
8
In Jai Kumar V. State of Madhya Pradesh33, the SC confirmed the death penalty of the person
accused of rape and opined imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the
courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts
should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of
the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of
the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate
punishment as held in Dhananjoy Chaterjee V. State of West Bengal 34.
It is urged before this Hon’ble Court that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law
and society could not long endure under such serious threats35 It is, therefore, the duty of every
court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence.
It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that it should hear the loud cry for justice by the
society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls36 which is the case here
with the 17 years old victim. The counsel respectfully submits that if a person is old enough to
rape then he is old enough to be tried as an adult and that is why it is contended that the criterion
of eighteen (18) years set out in the JJ Act does not comprehend cases of grave offences and
of heinous crimes against women in particular that shakes the root of humanity in general.
present:
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that according to Juvenile Justice Act 2000,
there are three ways to ascertain the age of juvenile:
(i) Based upon Appearance: If by appearance, juvenile appears to be a child below 18

years then Child Welfare Committee record approximate age & proceed without
further inquiry.
(ii) Based upon Documentary evidence: If reasonable ground exists for doubting the
age, then relies upon Matriculation certificate or birth certificate for determining
age.
33
Jai Kumar V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 5 SCC 1
34
Dhananjoy Chaterjee V. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
35
State of U.P. V. Sattan Alias Satyendra & Ors., (2009) SCC 736
36
State of Karnataka V. Krishnappa, 2000 (5) SCC 75
9
(iii) Based upon Medical Evidence: If reasonable ground exists and the birth certificate
or matriculation certificate is not present then ossification test can be done.
Reliability:- The most reliable source for ascertaining Date of birth is matriculation certificate
or birth certificate and there can’t be any objection over the age of juvenile as they both are
included in the primary form of documentary evidence under Indian Evidence Act and the
ossification test is merely an expert opinion. The primary and most reliable source for
determining age according to Section 62 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is matriculation
certificate or birth certificate. In the present case, the matriculation certificate was present
which is considered as the highest class of evidence and the accused was a major according to
the same. No one can change his/her date of birth in Matriculation certificate as it is duly
authenticated by the Educational Board. Still, the court provided him benefit of doubt of age
ignoring all the available witnesses and documentary evidence.
In Kamta Pandey V. M/s. BCCL & Ors.37, The full bench held that the date of birth recorded
in the Matriculation Certificate is a conclusive proof of age and no other records. Also, the
hon’ble SC in the case of Ram Suresh Singh V. Prahlad Singh38 has reiterated the same
principle. Also, in Mohd. Afsar V. State39, it was held that the foremost priority for determining
age has to be given to the Matriculation Certificate and in its absence to the Birth certificate.
The accused presented his Aadhar card as proof of his age but it is not a conclusive proof as
held in the case of Krishan Kumar V. State of U.P.40 and reiterated in the case of Smt. Parvati
Kumari & Ors. V. State of U.P.41
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the benefit of doubt of age
given by the high court in the present case is not justified and the order of the high court should
be quashed.
37
Kamta Pandey V. M/s BCCL & Ors., 2007 (3) JLJR 726
38
Ram Suresh Singh V. Prahlad Singh, AIR SCW 2006
39
Mohd. Afsar V. State, Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2020
40
Krishan Kumar @ Kukoo V. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal no. 118 of 1989
41
Smt. Parvati Kumari & Ors. V. State of U.P., Misc. Bench No. 13419 of 2018
10
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE CHARGES OF RAPE OR

NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the accused is
punishable for rape because of all the circumstantial evidence alluding towards the offence
committed by accused.
3.1 Circumstantial evidence were enough for conviction:

All the evidences given by petitioner were enough for conviction of accused under rape which
can also be seen in the judgments of CJM(1st) and MM courts which are as follows:
3.1.1 Consent:
The consent in the present case has to be viewed from two folds. The first is that, under POSCO
the consent of a person under the age of 18 is irrelevant, regardless of the nature and
circumstance of the sexual interaction, or the particulars of the person with whom it takes place.
This means that any sex with a minor is rape which was reirtreated in a number of cases like in
Rameshwar V. State of Rajasthan42 in 1952 and in Sideshwar Ganguly V. The State of West
Bengal43 in 1958 that in case of girl below the age of consent, her consent will not matter as
far as the rape is concerned which can again be seen in the case of Malla V. State of
Karnataka44 in 2015 ,that Even if there is consensual sex with a minor, it would amount to
rape.Even recently The Punjab and Haryana HC in 2022, says that even if is assumed that a
minor girl consented is of no consequence and the relations, her consent is of no consequence
and the accused will have to face criminal proceedings.
The second is that, the victim was already intoxicated at the time the offence was committed
as stated that the consent given by a woman of unsound mind or of intoxicated woman is no
defence45 which was again reirtreated by Bombay HC in 2019 that the consent given by a
woman under intoxication of alcohol cannot be termed as a ‘valid’ consent for sexual
intercourse. It further said that ‘yes’ for sex is actually a ‘no’ if the woman is drunk.46
42
Rameshwar V. The State of Rajasthan (1952) AIR 54 : 1952 SCR 377
43
Sidheshwar Ganguly V. The State of West Bengal (1958) AIR 143 : 1958 SCR 749
44
Malla V. The State of Karnataka, ILR (1989) KAR 60
45
R V. Camplin (1845) 1 COX 22
46
Abinayna Santosh Sahi V. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Bail Application no. 2539 of 2021
11
And in the present case the victim was not only not under the rightful age of giving the consent
but also was intoxicated. Hence proving the sexual offence without consent and it should also
be taken of notice that it was the accused who took victim to her room after the physical fight
between the accused and deceased.
3.1.2 Physical Injury:
It is contented that there was no physical injury on the victim because she wasn’t resisting
resulting in her passive consent and was involved in the act completely. First of all according
to the Explanation 2 of Sec 375 of IPC47 it is clearly said that consent means an unequivocal
voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non- verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the
reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to sexual consent. So, it does not amount to
her being involved in the said sexual act.
Furthermore, there have been a catena of judgements which prove that having injury on the
body of victim is not necessary for conviction in rap cases like in Rafique V. State of U.P.48
where the appellant was convicted even in the absence of injuries on the person on victim and
SC in the same case even held that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the
testimony of prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but guidelines of prudence under given
circumstances. Even Justice Krishan Iyer said, “a sensitised who sees the totality of the
circumstances initially against its veracity.49 Therefore, it is not always necessary, that the
testimony of the victim be corroborated by some other evidence before the accused can be
convicted. It was again reiterated that the absence of injuries is not by itself sufficient to hold
that the victim was a consenting party or that the story of sexual assault was unreliable.50It was
again pointed out in the case of Rajendra Dutta Zarekar V. State of Goa51 that rupture of
hymen or other physical injury is not essential to constitute rape. It was observed by SC in 2009
again that the victim in the circumstances cannot be expected to have put resistance and absence
47
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) as amended by J & K Reorganisation Act,2019
48
Rafique V. State of UP (1980) 4 SCC 262
49
Krishna Lal V. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCC 150
50
State of Karnataka V. Mehaboob (1987) Cr Lj 940 (kar.)
51
Rajendra Datta Zarekar V. State of Goa (2008) I Cr Lj 710 (SC)
12
of injuries on person of victim does not lead to an inference that she consented for sexual
intercourse.52
3.1.3 Witness:
The present issue has 2 folds regarding witnesses in the present case. The first is that the victim
.i.e., Snigdha turned hostile in her cross examination whilst the trial was in the court of
metropolitan magistrate which is quite normal in rape cases, most of the times victims turns
hostile due to reminiscienting the mental trauma they have gone through. It was also reiterated
by the Delhi HC that rape cases against accused can’t be mitigated on the ground that victim
has turned hostile or have given no objection certificate and it doesn’t abate the seriousness of
crime in the case of Vijender Pal Singh V. State and Anr.53 It was reiterated in 2012 in case
of State V. Sanjeev Nanda54 where it was held that the mere fact of prosecutrix turning hostle
is not relevant, and it does not efface the evidence with regard to sexual assault upon her and
the identification of the appealant as perpetrator. It was again reiterated in 2018 by a 3 judge
bench of qoram, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice KM Joseph and Justice Ranjan Gogoi by Supreme
court that Accused cannot be acquitted merely because victim turned hostile and failed to
identify him the TIP (Test Identification Parade) and affirmed conviction.
The second is that lack of independent witness in favour of victim to prove her accusations
strongly but in a similar situation where there were no independent witness in favour of victim
other than family members then it was held by SC that when such an act is done, the natural
tendency is not to talk about it to others but, to an extent possible hide it in natural course of
events if rape had been committed.55
3.1.4 Behaviour of Accused:
The behaviour of accused is somewhat suspicious because according to the facts stated in
proposition, the accused from the beginning is not strongly trying to defend himself against the
accusations in trial court but was trying to bargain in the quantum of punishment which he
should face and for that accused even filed a petition under sec 482 CrPC. in the high Court of
Jombia Seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet on the ground the accused-petitioner is a
52
Rajinder V. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 4 Cr Lj 4133 (SC)
53
V.P Singh V. State of Pumjab, CRM-M-36799-2020
54
State V. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450
55
State of Rajasthan V. Om Prakash (2002) Cr Lj 2951 (SC)
13
minor aged 17 yrs at the time of incident and investigating agency is trying to show that
petitioner is major which in actuality he is not.
This further shows the level of maturity the accused have and how he is trying to mold the facts
of the case and hide his age to get convicted as minor because accused is aware of the fact that
the law is lenient to minors and he will be able to escape the punishment stated in criminal law
which is proportionate to the henious crime committed by him.
This in itself is one the biggest evidence in favour of victim which shows the guilty mind of
accused and his persistence to be trialed as minor proves his accusation.After all these evidence
the corroboration of evidence is not necessary which is reiterated by a number of judgments
like in case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjinbhai V. State of Gujarat56, the SC held that for
conviction of rape corroboration is not necessary and then in case of State of H.P V. Raghubir
Singh57, it was held that there is no legal compulsion to look for corroboration of the evidence
of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. It can again be seen in may cases in
which the same is held as in case of Gajanand V. State of Gujarat58 that the accused can be
convicted on the lone testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration and similarly in case
of Bhupinder Sharma V. State of Himachal Pradesh59 by SC.
3.2 The Burden of Proof:

Now, when it is established that there is a commission of act of sexual offence against victim
by accused and as held in many cases that the evidence of a raped women should be given more
importance if the evidence does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor
does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on
corroboration except from medical evidence as held in case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai
Hirjinbhai V. State of Gujarat. So, The Burden of Proof lies on the accused to prove victim’s
consent.
56
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjinbhai V. State of Gujrat (1983) Cr Lj 1096 (SC)
57
State of H.P. V. Raghubir Singh, 1995 Cri Lj 3007
58
Gajanand V. State of Gujrat (1987) Cr Lj 374 (Guj.)
59
Bhupinder Sharma V. State of Himachal Pradesh (2004) Cr Lj 1 (SC)
14
3.3 Order of Trial Court Should be reinstated:

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that all the evidence in the present case
sufficiently established the guilt of accused for rape and molestation which was also the
findings of trial court. So, as such trial court’s order should be reinstated because the order of
trial court is justifiable, reasonable and doesn’t suffer from any infirmity and followed all rules
and procedure established by law to meet the ends of justice.
15

NOT?
Arambh under Section 302. Section 300 of IPC gives the definition of murder and enumerates
the ingredients of the offence. A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death
of a person or causes such bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or
causes such bodily injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits
an act so dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person60.
The terms actus reus and mens rea come from “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which
literally means “an act does not make a person guilty unless mind is also guilty”. The Appellant
contends that actus reus and mens rea had been proven successfully, thus The Accused is guilty
for murder of Arambh.
4.1 Actus Reus:

Actus reus is any wrongful act61. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, it is contended that
the actus reus had been established by way of Accused’s statement and Physical conduct.
4.1.1 Statement & Physical conduct of the Accused:
The Accused’s statement as a whole is inadmissible under Section 195A of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, but reliance can be placed on those parts of the statement, which are corroborated
by other evidence such as the statements given by the witnesses. It is contended that in the
instant case, the accused involved in a physical fight with the deceased and punched him on
his liver after which he fell unconscious even after that he didn’t stop there and clearly said
that I will kill you right then and there. All his friends and even his girlfriend Snigdha was
literally shaken with his conduct. Also, it is clearly mentioned in the Autopsy report that the
60
Section 300, IPC
61
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006.)
16
reason for the death of the accused was liver injury and alcohol poisoning. As, he was being
punched in the liver and fell unconscious and caused injury in the liver which led to alcohol
poisoning because liver is the main organ which metabolize alcohol according to the American
Addiction Centres Report and resulted in the death of the deceased which have been
corroborated by other evidence, prove the actus reus of the accused.
4.2 Mens Rea:

Mens rea is considered as guilty intention62, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused63. It is submitted that the intention to kill had been established in light of clear-cut
motive of the accused.
4.2.1 Intention:
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder. Moreover, the SC held that the intention to kill is not required
in every case, mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death
will suffice for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC in the case of Santosh V. State of Madhya
Pradesh 64. The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries
caused to the victim65. It is humbly contended by the Appellant that the intention of the accused
of murdering the deceased had been established by his statements and physical conduct.
4.2.2 Motive:
Sec 8, Indian Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is further pertinent to note that if
there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary.
Heinous offences have been committed for very slight motive66. The Supreme Court has held
that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence67. In a criminal court one often
62
Commissioner of Income Tax V. Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4.
63
State of Maharashtra V.. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
64
Santosh V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC).
65
Laxman V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
66
State V. Dinakar Bandu, (1969) 72 Bom LR 905.
67
Nathulal V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43.
17
wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing what was the motive of the alleged criminal in
doing the particular act. It is not essential under IPC for prosecution to establish motive. But
as a matter of common sense, this is usually of importance, because an average man does not
commit a criminal offence unless he has a strong motive for doing it68. The absence of proof
of motive has this effect only, that the other evidence bearing guilt of the accused has to be
very closely examined69. The motive behind the crime is a very relevant fact of which evidence
can be given. The absence of motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the
evidence. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the accused are, however, not weakened
by the fact that motive has not been established70. Where the positive evidence against the
accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance71. It is the
humbly contended that Accused’s physical conduct and statements along with his violent
nature, which had been established by way of circumstantial evidence, constitute the motive
for the offence.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused had no motive, it is humbly contended that
absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the case. Motive is immaterial so far as the
offence is concerned, and need not be established72 as the mere existence of motive is by itself,
not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take the place of a proof73. Therefore, absence
of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused
with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not fatal as a matter of law74.
When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt to prove
that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused the death of the accused then,
motive of the crime need not be proved75.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that The Accused was correctly
held guilty for the offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea and actus reus had been
established from the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
68
P.D. Shamdasini V. Unknown, AIR 1929 Bom 443.
69
Atley V. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 80
70
Rajinder Kumar V. The State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 1322.
71
Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460.
72
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, (26th ed., 2007).
73
State of Punjab V Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471.
74
Mulakh Raj V. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175
75
State of Madhya Pradesh V. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
18
4.3 Order of Session court should be reinstated:

Arambh under Section 302 because all the essential elements to constitute murder has been
established in the present case.
Furthermore, the judgement of High court which acquitted the accused from the charge of
murder stating that there is no nexus between other than the body being found on his house
was completely unjustified because it is clearly mentioned in the Autopsy report that the reason
for the death of the accused was liver injury and alcohol poisoning. According to a research
conducted by National Centre for Biotechnology Information76, the alcohol is metabolized to
Acetaldehyde which has toxic effects on hepatocytes. As, he was being punched in the liver
and fell unconscious and caused injury in the liver, which in turn released DAMPs (Damage
Associated Molecular Patterns) further leading to alcohol poisoning because liver is the main
organ which metabolize alcohol according to the American Addiction Centres Report 77 and
process for breaking down alcohol produces highly toxic chemicals which can be tolerated by
the liver only but the liver cells were already damaged which gradually developed scars in the
tissues resulting in alcohol poisoning and the death of the deceased which have been
corroborated by other evidence clearly establishes the proximate nexus. Therefore, the Sessions
court’s decision of convicting him for murder was completely justified. It is humbly submitted
that the order of sessions court should be reinstated.
76
Alcoholic Liver Disease: Pathogenesis and Current Management; Natalia A. Osna, Terrence M. Donohue,
Kusum K. Kharbanda.
77
Liver Cirrhosis: Causes, Symptoms & Damage from Alcohol; Wendy Manwarren Generes and Scot Thomas,
July 2022
19
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
Crl. Criminal
Govt. Government
HC High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
i.e. Id est/ In other words
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors Others
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual offences
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
UOI Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
V. Versus
& And
Etc. Et cetera
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
13
NCT National Capital Territory
BOP Burden of Proof
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
NCBI National Centre for Biotechnology

Information
Info. Information
DAMPs Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns
14
PRAYER
Wherefore, In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
It is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to abjudge and declare that-
• The Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

• High Court order should be quashed.
• The Accused is guilty for murder under Section 302, IPC, 1860.
• The Accused is guilty for Rape under Section 376, IPC, 1860 and Section 3/4 and 5(r)/6,
POCSO, 2012,2019.
• Pass any other order in favour of the Appellant which this Court may deems fit in the
light of justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted
S/d_______________
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
15

JUMCC325 Iii Jecrc Udmkmn Moot Court Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUMCC325 Iii Jecrc Udmkmn Moot Court Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUMCC325 Iii Jecrc Udmkmn Moot Court Competition, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

III JECRC UDMKM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

III JECRC UDMKMN MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ____ / 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON`BLE JUSTICE OF THE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ORDER SHOULD BE QUASHED OR NOT?

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE CHARGES OF RAPE OR NOT?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR CHARGES OF MURDER OR NOT?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -----------------------------------------------------------------------I

TABLE OF CONTENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------------------------- VIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IX

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- XII

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136

1.1 The Appellant have the right to file SLP: --------------------------------------------- 1

1.2 Question of law: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

1.3 Miscarriage of Justice: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT SHOULD BE QUASHED

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR THE CHARGES OF RAPE OR

3.1 Circumstantial evidence were enough for conviction: --------------------------------11

3.2 The Burden of Proof: ------------------------------------------------------------------------14

3.3 Order of Trial Court Should be reinstated: ---------------------------------------------15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR CHARGES OF MURDER OR

4.1 Actus Reus: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

4.2 Mens Rea: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

4.3 Order of Session court should be reinstated: -------------------------------------------19

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- XIII

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Abinayna Santosh Sahi V. The State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Mohd. Afsar V. State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 10

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V. State of Gujarat ---------------------------------------------------- 1

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012

Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed 2006.)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, STATE OF JOMBIA, HEREBY HUMBLY

THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS SPECIAL

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONRENTIONS

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TRIAL BEFORE COURT OF MAGISTRATE:

APPLICATION U/S 482 OF CrPC:

TRIAL BEFORE COURT OF SESSION:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT