You are on page 1of 15

9

th

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPLETION

2016, AMITY UNIVERSITY

IN THE WORLD

COURT OF JUSTICE

THE CASE CONCERNING

INVITED

INTERVENTION & STATE

SUCCESSION

-BETWEEN-

STATE OF VADERTHAM
APPLICANT
VS.

STATE

OF

KYLOSIA

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

0|Page

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
LIST

OF

ABBRIVIATIONS
INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION.
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS............................................................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.......................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.....................................................
PRAYER...............................................................................

1|Page

L I S T O F A B R I V I AT I O N S
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

SC : Supreme court
HC : High Court
u/s. : Under section
r/.w. : read with
IPC : Indian Penal Code

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED

The Corfu Channel Case, I. C. J. Rep. (1949)

Case concerning Military and Para-Military Activities in and against Nicaragua


(Nicaragua v U.S.A) ICJ Rep. (1986) Judgement of 1986

The Caroline Case (1841)

BOOKS REFERRED

KELSON

THE LAW OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 7th Printing (The London


Institute of World Affairs, the Law Book Exchanges, LTI Union,
New Jersey, 2008)

DR, KAPOOR S.K.

INTERNATIONAL LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS, 18th Edition


(Central Law Agency, 2011)

2|Page

SHAW, MALCOM.N.

INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5th Edition (Cambridge University


Press, 2003)

DICTIONARY

Oxford Dictionary of Law, 5th Edition (Oxford University Press, 2003)

Blacks Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition( St. Paul MINN. West Publishing Company,
1968)

INTERNET RESOURCES

http://www.indiankanoon .com

http://www.lawnotes.in

http://www.case diary.com

http://www.ipc.com

http://www.google.co.in

http://www.wikipedia.co

3|Page

S TAT E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
The appellant has approached the Honarable Supreme court of India under Article 132
ans 134 of Constitution of India 1950. The case is listed for arguments before the division
bench of the Honble Supreme Court.

Article 132 of the Constitution of India 1950 reads as hereunder;

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
( 1 ) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of
a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if
the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question
of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution
(2) Omitted
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme
Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided
Explanation For the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order
declaring an issue which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the
final disposal of the case

Article 134 of the Constitution of India reads as here under;

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters


(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has
in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
made in that behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require

4|Page

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified
in such law

S Y N O P S I S O F FA C T S
1. Meera an 18 year old girl studying In class 12th used to take Maths tuitions from Rahul.
5|Page

2. Rahul Accused no.1 techer of Meera developed emotions for Meera was unaware of his
feelings.
3. On 14th Feburary Rahul proposed Meeras and on 20th Feb .2016 he approached her
parents regarding the same , as Meeras did not replied to his proposal ans wanted him to
talk on this matter to her parents directly.
4. Meeras Parents rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. There after
she started avoiding Rahul.
5. Once Meera also made it very clear to Rahul that she would not go against the wishes of
her parent and asked him not to follow her.Despite he continued following her and
personally contacted her on phones and internet. Meera reported the same to her parents.
6. Once Rahul tried to convince her parents about his feelings and further asted that he
wanted to marry her on which her parents rebuked and asked him to leave.
7. Rahul enraged with the feeling of rejection went to Sanjay aged 45 and narrated the
whole thing. Sanjay always treated Rahul as his son.
8. Sanjay suggested Rahul to find Meera alone and take her to the temple for marrying her
and suggested. In case Meera after any resistance, he will threaten her with the bottle of
acid to pressurize her to come with them to the temple, to which Rahul agreed.
9. On 23rd March as per plan finding Meera passing on a lonely road Rahul and Sanjay got
out of the car and rahul approached her and asked her to come with him to the temple to
marry him but she refused, on which Sanjay carrying the bottle of acid , threatened
Meera.
10. Rahul start dragging Meera ito the car, due to which Meera started shouting loudly, To
teach a lesson to Meera sanjay threw the acid on her face and then both Rahul and Sanjay
fled away leaving Meera in immense pain.
11. FIR was lodged, Statement of Meera was recorded. A case was registered against both the
accused u/s 326 A r/w section 34 IPC. Rahul was also charged u/s 354 D. Sanjay
absconding and declared proclaimed offender while Rahul wa arrested by police and
bottle of acid and car was seized from his possession.
12. After investigation and triel before Sessions Court Rahul was formed guilty and the court,
convicted Rahul u/s 326 A r/w section 34 and sentenced him 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to meera of Rs 2,00,000 to be paid
immediately. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Both the sentences
were to run concurrently.

6|Page

13. Rahul appealed before the HC seeking acquittal where as state appealed demanding life
imprisonment and also the enhancement of amount of compensation.
14. HC adjudicated in favor of the accused by acquitting him from the charges and dismissed
the appeal of sates and held that the charges could not be proved against the accused.
15. Now state has filed an appeal under aforesaid section to award life imprisonment to the
accused and also to enhance compensation awarded by the session court to 3.50,000 to be
paid by the accused to the victim in addition to the compensation to be paid by the state
govt. u/s 37 a cpc.
16. The state also sought permission for addition of charge under section 366 IPC

Hence the present matter before the division bench og honorable


supreme court

7|Page

S TAT E M E N T O F I S S U E S
THE APPELLANTS

RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE

HONBLE COURT,

THE FOLLOWING

QUESTIONS:

___________
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAD COMMON
INTENTION OF USING ACID BOTTLE IN THERE
PLAN OF ABDUCTION ?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILITY OF ACID
AT T A C K O R N O T ?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILITY OF
S TA L K I N G O R N O T ?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILITY OF
ABDUCTION OR NOT?

8|Page

___________
_____________________

S U M M A RY O F A R G U M E N T S
I. Whether the accused had common intention of using acid bottlein there plan of
abduction?
It is humbly submitted that before the honorable court that the accused Rhul is guility of having
common intention with sanjay of using an acid bottle in their plan of abduction. He aggreed to
the idea of sanjay Accused no. 2 to use it as tool to force Meera to marry her if she refuses.

II. Whether the accused is guility of acid attack or not?


It is humbely submitted before this honorable court that accused Rahul is guility of acid attack
because he aggredd and had common intention tu use acid bottle in his plan which clears out his
intention of attacking Meera with it and cause her grievious hurt and life time damage.

III. Whether the accused is guility of stalking or not?


It is humbely submitted to honorable court that the accused rahul is guility of stalking because on
one occasion Meera made it clear to him that ot to follow her anymore. Despite the disinterest
shown by victim accused continued to follow her atdifferent places and contacted her
personally on phone and through internet causing fear to Meera so she reported the same to her
parents.

IV.

Whether the accused is guility of abduction or not?


It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the accused is guilty of the act abduction.
It is stated that on 23rd march 2016 as per the paln of the accused , finding Meera on a lonely
street accused approached her to come with him to temple to marry him but the victim refused to
the proposal so, the accused started dragging her into the car and the way the accused partner
sanjay threw acid on her.

9|Page

A R G U M E N T S A D VA N C E D
I.

WHETHER THE ACCUSED HAD COMMON INTENTION OF

USING ACID BOTTLEIN THERE PLAN OF ABDUCTION ?


1. It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the accused Rahul is guilty and had
common intention of using acid bottle in their plan. As section 34 of the IPC states that when a
criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of all each of such person is liable
for the act in the same manner as if it wre done by him alone .in case of Sachin Jama v. state
of bengal1 that an act done by two or more person jointly and intentionally can be taken if done
by each of them individually by himself. In case Byomkesh Bhattacharya v. L.N. Dutta 2 it is held
that section 34 enunciated the principle of joint liability. If two or more person intentionally do
an act jointly it is just the same as each of them had done it individually. Even if no injury has
been caused by the particular accused himself. here in this case te accused has pre planned ath
act of abduction and use of acid bottle, he ws physically present at the scene of occurrence. It
was held in Nand Kishorev. State of Madhya Pradesh that section 34 deals with constructive
criminal liability. It provides that were a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance f
common intensions of all, each of such person is liable for the act in the same manners if it is
was done by him alone.

.
1 208 II G.L.J 1596(SC)
2 848G.L.J (1978)

10 | P a g e

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILITY OF ACID ATTACK OR


NOT ?
It is humbly submitted that before the honorable court that the accused is guilty of .Acid
Attack which is stated in section 326 A of IPC- Whoever causes permanent or partial
damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of
the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid
to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt. Here in aforesaid case that
accused had the knowledge of using the acid bottle in his act, the act was done by the
accused 2 Sanjay who threw acid on the victim , but here the accused had the knowledge
of using of acid bottle as per his plan which proves common intention of both the accused
to cause grievous hurt to the victim. Here section 326 A r/w sections 34 is charged on the
plaintiff and s guilty of acid attack having common intention to provide grievous hurt to
the victims. The case of Laxmi v union of India3of 2014 it is stated that the State and
Union Territory and is the minimum amount which the States hall make available to each
victim of acid attack. The State and Union Territory concerned can give even more
amount of compensation than Rs.3, 00,000/- as directed by this Court. It
is pertinent to mention here that the mandate given by this Court in Laxmis case
nowhere restricts the Court from giving more compensation to the victim of acid attack,
especially when the victim has suffered serious injuries on her body which is required to
be taken into consideration by this court. In peculiar facts, this court can grant even more
compensation to the victim than Rs. 3, 00,000/-.

In the case of Parivartan Kendra v. union of India4 Though in this case we are not issuing

3 2014-SC 427
4 867 SC 2013

11 | P a g e

Any guidelines different from the guidelines issued in Laxmis case,we should not forget
that the younger sister was also injured by the acid attack.

Although her degree of

sufferance is not as that of the elder one, but she also requires treatment and
rehabilitation. It is to be noted that this Court in Laxmis case(supra) doesnt put a bar on
the Govt. to award compensation limited to Rs.3 Lakhs. Therefore, this Court deems it
proper to award a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and accordingly, we direct the
concerned Government to compensate the victim to a tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs, and in light
of the Judgment given in Laxmis case we direct the concerned State Government of
Bihar to compensate the main victims sister, Sonam to a tune`of Rs. 3 Lakhs.
In the aforesaid case the victim has already spent more than
a. 6.5 lakhs on 6 major surgeries done til date
b. 10- 15 more surgeries still need to be done.
c. Despite various surgeries Meera has permanently lost vision of her left eye
d. Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but
also deep inside her memory which together with loss of vision of left eye will
adversaly affect her future prospects.
e. Her father lost his job because he was too busy in her treatment. now he is
jobless and there is no one to support her family.

III.

WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILITY OF STALKING

OR NOT ?
1. It is humble submitted before the honorable court that the charges on accused is also charged
with the offense of stalking under section 354 D of the IPC
Section 354 D of the IPC5 states that any man who follows a women and contacts or attempt to
contact such person or foster personal interaction respectfully despite a clear indication of

5 Inserted by the criminal law Amendment 2013

12 | P a g e

disinterest by such women ;or monitors the use of the internet emails or any other form of
electronic communication commits the offense of stalking.
In the aforesaid case accused rahul used to follow Meera and trying to convince her for marriage.
On one occasion Meera also made it clear to him that she would not go against the wishes of her
parents and asked him not to follow her anymore showing his clear disinterest towards him.
Despite the disinterest shown by meera Rahul continued to follow her at various places and
contacted her personally on phone and through internet.

P R AY E R
HEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT
ADVANCED,

REASONS

HONBLE COURT

GIVEN

AND

AUTHORITIES

CITED,

THIS

MAY BE PLEASED TO:

TO HOLD

CONVICT RAHUL

FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION

326 A R/W

SECTION

34

IPC

AND SECTION 354 D AND UNDER SECTION 366 IPC


DECLARE A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT CONSIDERING THE OFFENCE
AS HEINOUS

AND ALSO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE

SESSIONS COURT RS

3,50,000

IN ADDITION ON THE COMPENSATION TO BE

PAID BY THE STATE GOVT. UNDER SECTION

357 A

CRPC

MISCELLANEOUS
PASS ANY ORDER IT MAY DEEVE FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
ALL WHICH IS HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

13 | P a g e

14 | P a g e