You are on page 1of 35

TEAM CODE: TC-13

INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA


1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA


(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____OF 2016


SHEKHAR SAXENA

PETITIONER
Versus
RESPONDENT

UNION OF INDIANA

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA)


WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____OF 2016
PETITIONER

SHYAMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIANA

.RESPONDENT

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...9
STATEMENT OF FACTS.....10
ISSUES RAISED13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED........17
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT17
1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE........18
1.1.1

NO IRREGULARITY OF PROCEDURE OR VIOLATION OF


PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE..19

1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT


CASE.19
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT WAS
VALID OR NOT..21
2.1 THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SESSIONS COURT WERE JUSTIFIED21
2.1.1

THERE

WAS

SUBSTANTIAL

MEDICAL

EVIDENCE

AGAINST

SHYAMA.21
2.1.2

THERE WAS OCULAR EVIDENCE AGAINST SHEKHAR..22

2.2 THE SENTENCE AWARDED BY THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED....23


Page | 2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

2.3 THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AGE DETERMINATION OF SHYAMA23


3. WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR SEEKING
ACQUITTAL...........25
3.1 THERE WAS THE COMMISSION OF AN ILLEGAL ACT.26
3.2 THERE MUST BE COMMON INTENTION OF ALL TO COMMIT A
CRIMINAL ACT..26
3.3 THERE MUST BE PARTICIPATION OF ALL IN THE COMMISSION OF
OFFENCE IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT COMMON INTENTION..28
4. WHETHER THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION WITH THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIANA AND INTERNATIONAL NORMS...30
4.1 THE ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA...31
4.2 THE ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN
RESPECT OF JUVENILES..33
PRAYER.35

Page | 3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR

All India Reporter

All

Allahabad High Court

Bom. LR

Bombay Law Reporter

Cal

Calcutta High Court

CBI

Central Bureau of Investigation

Cri LJ / Cr LJ

Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Del.

Delhi

DLR

Delhi Law Review

DLT

Delhi Law Times

Edn.

Edition

Guj.

Gujarat

JJA

Juvenile Justice Act

ILR

Indian Law Reports

IPC

Indian Penal Code

IC

Indian Cases

JT

Judgment Today

Mad

Madras

NCRB

National Crime Records Bureau

Ori

Orissa

P&H

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat

Patna

Raj

Rajasthan

Page | 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

RCR

Recent Criminal Reports

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SCJ

Supreme Court Journal

SCR

Supreme Court Reporter

Sec.

Section

U.O.I.

Union Of India

v.

Versus

Page | 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.
Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.
State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors. , (1980) 3 SCC 141
Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., (1986) AIR 1748 (SC).
Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).
Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815.
Parichat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 535.
Dhansai v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 Ori 105.
State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, 1983 Cr LJ 229 (SC).
Tukaram Ganpet Pandave v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 514.
Sharif Ahmad Alias Achhan, (1956) 2 All 188.
Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 Raj 305.
Maqsoodan v. State of UP, 1983 Cr LJ 218 (SC).
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 179.
Union of India & Ors v. Su Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR
1955 SC 331.
Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal 339.
State of M.P v. Desh Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 199.
Idris Bhai Daud Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC 277.
Union of India & Ors v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414.

Page | 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

Deepak v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 762.


Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484.
Abdul Sayeed v. State Of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259.
Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand 2009 (64) ACC. 754.
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 584.
Gaurav Kumar v. The State of Haryana 2015 (4) SCALE5 31.
Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 7 SCC 705.
State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737.
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390.
BOOKS
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
K I Vibhute, P.S.A Pillais Criminal law, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014.
Dr. (Sir) Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th
Edn. 2014.
J C Smith, Smith and Hogan Criminal Law Cases and Materials, LexisNexis
Butterworths, 8th Edn. 2002.
Basus Indian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11th Edn. 2011.
Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2015.
Dr. Karunakaran Mathiharan, Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology,
LexisNexis Butterworths, 23rd Edn. 2010.
Maharukh Adenwalla, Child Protection and Juvenile Justice System, ChildLine India
Foundation, Mumbai, 10th Edn. 2008.
Page | 7

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

Ved Kumari, Juvenile Justice System in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
2004.
S.K.A Naqvi & Sharat Tripathi, R. N. Choudhrys Law Relating to Juvenile Justice in
India, Orient Publishing Company, New Delhi, 3rd Edn. 2012.
STATUTES
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
The Constitution of India, 1949.
TREATIES
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990.
LEXICONS
Garner Bryana, Blacks law Dictionary, 7th Edn.1981, West Group.
Collins Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Edn. 2016. Collins.
Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Edn. 2006, Oxford University
Press.
LEGAL DATABASES
Manupatra
SCC Online
Judis
Indian Kanoon

Page | 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Indiana. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of this
Honble Court. The article 136 of Constitution of Indiana reads as hereunder:

136. 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.

Page | 9

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. Shyama is a poor boy who used to live in a slum in the outskirts of the city of Brada in
the Republic of Indiana. He studied in a government funded school named, Shanti
Niketan School up to Sixth Standard but then he dropped out of school and since then,
he has been in the employment of Mr. R. Batra. Shyama lives in the quarter provided
by Mr. Batra. It has been 6 years since his employment.
2. Mr. R. Batra had two children, a boy named Ravi, aged 18 years and a girl named
Vanita, aged 16 years. Shekhar Saxena, aged 17 years and 7 months is the Son of Mr.
Saxena. Shekhar is the neighbor of Mr. Batra.
3. Shekhar and Ravi had hatred for each other since childhood. In light of this both had a
heated quarrel. One day Shekhar was playing soccer in the park and Ravi & Vanita
were jogging at the same time. While playing soccer, the football got hit over Vanitas
head and she sustained some minor injuries. As a result, Ravi started verbally abusing
Shekhar and this led to a heated quarrel between the two where Ravi gave a blow to
Shekhar. Soon, the quarrel was resolved by one of the neighbors.
4. Both, Ravi and Vanita, used to insult Shyama in a condescending manner. Shyama was
also abused and tormented in public. One day, Shekhar saw this and talked to Shyama.
Both started sharing the hatred for Ravi and Vanita.

Page | 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

DEATH OF RAVI AND VANITA


5. Shyama took a leave for 3 days on 7th March, 2015 for going to his village. He had the
permission of Mr. Batra for the leave. On 8th March, 2015, Mrs. Batra had planned to
go to a painting exhibition with her family but due Mr. Batras work she decided to go
with her children. Shyama had prior knowledge of the same.
6. Mrs. Batra, with her children, reached the exhibition at 7:30 P.M. on 8th March, 2015.
Around 8:30 P.M. Vanita was taken away by four persons. Ravi sensed this and he
started searching for his sister. While searching, Ravi went to the basement and saw
four persons. Two persons were holding her sister and the other two were trying to
outrage her modesty.
7. Ravi tried to save his sister, however, he was suffered one blow on his head and several
blows on his abdomen. As a result, he fell unconscious. His sister Vanita tried to
scream, but her mouth was shut and in sudden haste she was strangulated. She fell dead
and all the four persons fled away. The bodies of the deceased were discovered around
9:30 P.M by the guard who came down to the basement to switch off the lights.
JUDICAL PROCEEDINGS
8. Shekhar was arrested on 10th March, 2015 on the information of Ram Manohar who
saw him sneaking out the basement on the night of 8th March, 2015. On the 12th March,
2015, Shyama was arrested along with Raju and Ranveer, who were Shekhars friends.
9. On 15th May, 2015, the case was admitted to the Juvenile Board (hereinafter as JB) as
all the boys were alleged to be below the age of 18 years. The case of Shekhar and
Shyama was committed to the Sessions Court as the JB found them well aware of the
circumstances and consequences of their acts. Both of them were tried u/s 302, 304,
326, 354 read with S. 34 of the Indiana Penal Code (hereinafter as IPC).

Page | 11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

10. On 12th June, 2015 Shekhars case was remanded back to the JB. However, Shyamas
submissions were rejected due to lack of evidence of age as his Birth Certificate
provided by the Municipality could not be discovered. Shyamas assertion to carry out
a Bone Test or any other allied test for the determination of his age was also rejected
by the court due to inconclusiveness of these kinds of tests.
11. On 28th July, 2015, Shyama was found guilty u/s 304, 326, 354 read with S.34 of IPC,
1860. He was sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years. Shekhar was found guilty u/s 304,
326, 354 read with S. 34 of IPC, 1860 on 4th August, 2015 and he was sent to a special
home for a maximum period of 3 years by the JB. Shekhar appealed to the Session court
against the judgement and order passed by the Juvenile Board. However, the appeal
was dismissed as the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt before the Juvenile
Board.
12. Both Shekhar and Shyama appealed to the High Court. Shyama filed an appeal against
the order of conviction since the Court of Session had no jurisdiction to try the case as
he was a minor. He also raised question regarding the justification of the court in
rejecting the bone test. Whereas, Shekhar filed an appeal for the quashing of the order
of conviction of the Court. Both the appeals were rejected by the High Court as both
were capax of committing the crime and both had common consensus. A contention
was raised in the cross appeal filed by prosecution against Shyama & Shekhar that both
the culprits should be convicted under S.302 instead of S.304. This was accepted by the
high court and Shyama was sentenced was life imprisonment and Shekhar was
sentenced for imprisonment of 10 years.
13. On 11th January, 2016, both the accused have petitioned before this Honble Apex Court
against the order of High Court and the Sessions Court. The matter is admitted and
listed for hearing.

Page | 12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS


COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.

2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT


WAS VALID OR NOT

3. WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR


SEEKING ACQUITTAL.

4. WHETHER

THE

ACT

IS

IN

CONTRAVENTION

WITH

THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND INTERNATIONAL NORMS.

Page | 13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS


COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Indiana that the
instant petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable. In the present case no exceptional and special circumstances exist and
substantial justice has already been done
It is contended by the respondents that no substantial question of law is involved in the
present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be
dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be
applied in determining the question of those principles the question would not be a
substantial question of law.
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstances which exist. The appellants are convicted of a heinous offence and
this petition filed by the appellants is a mere vexatious attempt by them. Hence, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.
2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT
WAS VALID OR NOT.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has
declared both, Shyama and Shekhar, as the accused in the light of the heinous acts
committed by them. It is contended by the respondents that the proceedings of the Sessions
Court in the present case were justified and lawful. There was no irregularity of proceeding
in the present case.

Page | 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

The Sessions Court found Shyama guilty of the offences in light of the circumstantial
evidences which were found against him. According to the Medical Report, the fingerprints
of Shyama were found on Vanitas body which led the court upon such a decision. The
second accused in the present case i.e. Shekhar was found guilty by the Sessions Court
upon the statement of Ram Manohar. He is the same person who saw Shekhar escaping out
of the basement, where the whole crime took place, at the night of the crime.
In this situation it can be well ascertained that, not only his appearance was considered also
his acts were considered too. Hence, in the present case the accused was well aware of the
circumstances of his delinquent act and hence he was capax of committing such a heinous
offence. Its further contended before this Honble Court that the orders passes by both the
lower courts were well justified and there is no need to waste the time of the court in such
vexatious and false contentions.
3. WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR SEEKING
ACQUITTAL
It is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the Honorable High
Court is a reasoned decision. Also, it is further contended that Shekhar was not charged
merely on the ground of presence alone. It is humbly submitted before this honorable Court
that, his plea of merely present at the crime scene is wrong and denied. The accused was
present at the crime scene in pursuance of a pre-planned act of taking revenge. It is his
hatred and animosity due to which he committed such a heinous offence. It is pertinent to
mention again that, Shekhar became so ambitious with the hatred against Ravi and Vanita
that, he started discussing the same with their servant.

Page | 15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

4. WHETHER THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION WITH THE CONSTITUTION


OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 is very much in consonance with the
provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. All the children in the age group of 16-18 years
are treated equally and no two children in the age group of 16-18 years who commit a
heinous offence are proposed to be treated differently under the current Act. Hence, there
will be not differential treatment of such children on any ground.

The Act of 2015, which has replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has clearly
defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous, and defined differentiated
processes for each category. The present act which has been amended is very well in
consonance with the Articles of the Constitution of Indiana. The Republic of Indiana is a
signatory to various conventions which protect the rights of Children.

The United Nations Convention on Rights of Child was ratified by the Republic of Indiana
in 1992 and the 2000 Act was consequently brought in to adhere to the standards set by the
Convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain international
commitments. However, by only becoming a mere signatory to the convention does not
make any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the convention. It is only when
then country has ratified such provisions, it becomes legally bound to abide by them.

Page | 16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS


COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Indiana that the
instant petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable. It will not be granted if there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice
is done. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to SC rather it confers wide
discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases1.
Also in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based
on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial
question of law is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial nature has been
occasioned2.
The Supreme Court, however, does not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters liberally.
It does so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist, substantial and grave
injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against, or there has been a departure from legal
procedure such as vitiates the whole trial, or if the findings of fact were such as shocking
to the judicial conscience of the Court3

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).

Honble Justice Bhanwar Singh, Criminal Appeals, JTRI Journal, 1995.

State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.

Page | 17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND


SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
The petitioner contends that in the present case no exceptional and special circumstances
exist and substantial justice has already been done. The appellant must show that
exceptional and special circumstances exists and that if there is no interference,
substantial and grave injustice will be done to the appellant4. Only then the court would
exercise its overriding powers under Art. 1365. Special leave will not be granted when
there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done, though the decision
suffers from some legal errors6
The court has emphasized in Pritam Singh v. The State7 that, The only uniform
standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances in that Court should
grant special leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are shown to
exist. The court shall interfere with the decision under challenge only if the
extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds are made out8.
It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of
the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 136. It being an exceptional
and overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only
in special and extraordinary situations9. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to

Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.

M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis, Nagpur, 7th Edn. 2014.

State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).

AIR 1950 SC 169.

Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).

Page | 18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

appeal to the SC rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in


suitable cases10.
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstances which exist. The appellants are convicted of a heinous offence
and this petition filed by the appellants is a mere vexatious attempt by them. Hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
1.1.1

NO

IRREGULARITY

OF

PROCEDURE

OR

VIOLATION

OF

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.


In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an
illegality or an irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural
justice resulting in the absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the
SC does not permit a third review of evidence with regard to question of fact in
cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and assessed the evidence with
regard to such questions11.
It is contended that this court is not bound to go into the merits and even if it were
to do so, and declare the law or point out the error, still it may not interfere if the
justice of the case on facts doesnt require interference or if it feels that the relief
could be molded in a different fashion12.

1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE.


It is contended by the respondents that no substantial question of law is involved in the
present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be

10

P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors. , (1980) 3 SCC 141.

11

Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., (1986) AIR 1748 (SC).

12

Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 (SC).

Page | 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be
applied in determining the question of those principles the question would not be a
substantial question of law.
It might involve question of law but not substantial question of law. The present case
does not involve such substantial question of law.
In Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai13 the court
emphasized that, the very conferment of the discretionary power defies any attempt at
exhaustive definition of power. The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine
fashion but in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general
public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court
shocks the conscience. This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the
Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and only in the furtherance of cause of justice
in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown
to exist.

13

AIR 2004 SC 1815.

Page | 20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

2. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT WAS
VALID OR NOT.
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has
declared both, Shyama and Shekhar, as the accused in the light of the heinous acts
committed by them. This order of conviction of both the persons accused has also been
upheld by the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court raised the sentence of both the
persons convicted. Shyama was ordered to be sentenced for life imprisonment and Shekhar
was sentenced for a period of 10 years imprisonment14. This order of conviction passed by
the Sessions Court and the sentence increased by the High Court are well justified.

2.1 THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SESSIONS COURT WERE JUSTIFIED


It is contended by the respondents that the proceedings of the Sessions Court in the
present case were justified and lawful. There was no irregularity of proceeding in the
present case. The Sessions Court found Shyama guilty of the offences in light of the
circumstantial evidences which were found against him. According to the Medical
Report, the fingerprints of Shyama were found on Vanitas body which led the court
upon such a decision.
2.1.1

THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST


SHYAMA
Recently, in a case15 the court emphasized that, even the medical evidence
supports the commission of sexual violence on the victim and we need not
elaborate on this issue any more in the light of concurrent finding of the courts

14

Fact Sheet, 13, Line 16-18.

15

Deepak v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 762.

Page | 21

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

below having been recorded against the Appellant holding in clear terms that sign
of commission of rape on the victim by the Appellant stood proved by medical
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the fingerprints of
Shyama on the body of Vanita were enough to prove that the heinous offence was
committed by him. There was substantial circumstantial evidence before the
Sessions Court against Shyama which led to his conviction.
2.1.2

THERE WAS OCULAR EVIDENCE AGAINST SHEKHAR


The second accused in the present case i.e. Shekhar was found guilty by the
Sessions Court upon the statement of Ram Manohar. He is the same person who
saw Shekhar escaping out of the basement, where the whole crime took place, at
the night of the crime. It has been held in plethora of cases that wherein there is a
difference of opinion regarding the ocular and medical evidence, the ocular
evidence always supersedes the medical evidence.
Since witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice, the oral evidence has primacy
over the medical evidence. If the oral testimony of the witnesses is found reliable,
creditworthy and inspires confidence, the oral evidence has to be believed, it
cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence16
The testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged
inconsistency between it and the medical evidence17. Thus, the position of law in
cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular
evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a
witness has greater evidentiary value vis-`-vis medical evidence, when medical

16

Honble Justice M.L Singhal, Medical Evidence and its use in trial of cases, J.T.R.I. Journal, Issue 3,

September, 1995.
17

Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484.

Page | 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor
in the process of the evaluation of evidence18. Hence, the Sessions Court was
justified in convicting both the accused for committing such heinous offences.

2.2 THE SENTENCE AWARDED BY THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED


The increasing of the sentence of both the accused in the present case by the Honble
High court was a justified act. The Honble High Court sentenced Shyama for
imprisonment for life and Shekhar was sentenced for imprisonment for a period of ten
years. The Honble High Court opined that the evidences revealed that both of the
accused were well aware of the circumstances of their delinquent acts. Also, the case
had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2.3 THERE WAS NOT NEED FOR AGE DETERMINATION OF SHYAMA.


It is humbly contended before this honourable court the reasons given by High Court
while rejecting the petition stated that, Shyama was well aware of the circumstances
and consequences of his delinquent act and therefore he was considered capax of
committing crime.
It has been held by the courts in their judgments where if the court by the appearance
of the person can determine if the person is adult then, he will be considered adult. The
court in the case of Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand19 opined that by observing the
physical built up of the person, it can be ascertained that he is an adult. It would be a

18

Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P, (2010) 10 SCC 259.

19

2009 (64) ACC. 754.

Page | 23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

duty of the court to accord the benefit to a juvenile, provided he is one, to give such
benefit to one who in fact is not a juvenile may cause injustice to the victim20
In this situation it can be well ascertained that, not only his appearance was considered
also his acts were considered too. Hence, in the present case the accused was well aware
of the circumstances of his delinquent act and hence he was capax of committing such
a heinous offence. Its further contended before this Honble Court that the orders
passes by both the lower courts were well justified and there is no need to waste the
time of the court in such vexatious and false contentions.

20

Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 584.

Page | 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

3. WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR SEEKING


ACQUITTAL
It is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the Honorable High
Court is a reasoned decision. Also, it is further contended that Shekhar was not charged
merely on the ground of presence alone, following reasons were given by the honorable
Court:
Both (Shekhar and Shyama) of them were well aware of circumstances and
consequences of their delinquent acts.
Both were capax of committing the crime.
Both were acting in common consensus.
The case was proved beyond reasonable doubts.

It is contended by the respondents that Shekhar had worked in furtherance of the common
intention to commit the offences against Ravi and Vanita. In order to attain his common
final object of taking revenge from Ravi against the long lasting animosity.

To attract the application of section 34 the following 3 conditions must exist:


1. Criminal act must be done by several persons;
2. There must be common intention of all to commit that criminal act;
3. There must be participation of all in the commission of offence in furtherance of
that common intention21.

The first element is well proved. Several persons contended here are Raju, Ranveer,
Shyama and Shekhar. In furtherance of the common intention, several persons must have

21

Parichat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 535.

Page | 25

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

done several acts which together constitute an offense. In such a situation S.34 provides for
each to be liable for the entire act as a whole22.

3.1 THERE WAS THE COMMISSION OF AN ILLEGAL ACT


It is not necessary to prove an overt act by a particular person in order to convict the
person. Criminal act done by all or one of them in furtherance of the common intention
of all would suffice to convict all the people23. It is contended that the criminal act of
murder was done by all the four accused in the furtherance of their common intention.
Lastly, culpability of a person under S. 34 cannot be excluded merely because he was
not present at the scene of the occurrence of the particular offense for which he has been
charged24.

3.2 THERE MUST BE COMMON INTENTION OF ALL TO COMMIT A


CRIMINAL ACT
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 murder25. The intention to cause damage or injury to
either public or any person has to be there. Intention connotes a conscious state in which
mental faculties are roused into activity and summoned into action for the deliberate
purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified act. Intention has been

22

Dhansai v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 Ori 105.

23

State of Punjab v. Mann Singh, 1983 Cr LJ 229 (SC)

24

Tukaram Ganpet Pandave v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 514.

25

(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635.

Page | 26

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

defined as the fixed direction of the mind to a particular object, or a termination to act
in a particular manner. So, the intention of the person can be gathered from the action of
the person26
Shekhar had animosity since childhood with Ravi. Shekhar and Shyama had shared the
hatred for Ravi and Vanita. Which is enough to show that Shekhar had intention to take
revenge from Ravi and Vanita by any means.
Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of time27.
Therefore, there needs to be a prior plan to commit a crime. This pre-arranged plan
however need not be an elaborate one28. A mere existence of a pre-arranged plan that
the offense be conducted is enough to satisfy this element. In most circumstances, proof
of common intention has to be inferred from the act or conduct or other relevant
circumstances of the case at hand29.

Moreover, 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 IPC30. The common intention must be to commit the particular crime, though
the actual crime may be conducted by anyone sharing the common intention31.
Therefore, it is contended by the prosecution that while the act of murder was conducted
in furtherance of the common intention between the two accused which can be inferred

26

Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.

27

Sharif Ahmad Alias Achhan, (1956) 2 All 188.

28

Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 Raj 305.

29

Maqsoodan v. State of UP, 1983 Cr LJ 218 (SC).

30

Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)

31

Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 179.

Page | 27

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

from their frequent discussions on what it would mean if Ravi were to die one day, a
common intention to commit the offense of murder.

3.3 THERE MUST BE PARTICIPATION OF ALL IN THE COMMISSION OF


OFFENCE IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT COMMON INTENTION.

The principle of Common Intention embodies the concept of Joint Liability and says
that all those persons who have committed a crime with a common intention and have
acted while keeping in mind the common intention, should be liable for the acts of
another done in common intention as if the act is done by the person alone32.
The common intention implies a prior concert, that is, a prior meeting of minds and
participation of all the members of the group in the execution of that plan33. Common
intention also means a desire to commit a criminal act without any contemplation of
offence34. It deals with doing of several acts, similar or diverse in furtherance of
common intention35.
Direct proof of common intention is seldom therefore intention could be inferred from
circumstances. The court must draw inferences based on the premises presented by the
Prosecution36. In the immediate matter, the circumstances undeniably point towards
existence of a pre-arranged plan on part of the accused to make the murder look sudden
but natural and thus are guilty of the aforementioned offences.

32

Union of India & Ors v. Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414.

33

Pandurang Tukia and Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 331.

34

Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal 339.

35

State of M.P v. Desh Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 199.

36

Idris Bhai Daud Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 SCC 277.

Page | 28

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

As per para 5 of the fact sheet it is mentioned that there were four persons, two of them
were tightly holding Vanita and other two were trying to outrage her modesty. Even if,
Shekhar was holding Vanita cannot be the ground to save him from the crime that he
has committed.
It is humbly submitted before this honorable Court that, his plea of merely present at
the crime scene is wrong and denied. The accused was present at the crime scene in
pursuance of a pre-planned act of taking revenge. It is his hatred and animosity due to
which he committed such a heinous offence. It is pertinent to mention again that,
Shekhar became so ambitious with the hatred against Ravi and Vanita that, he started
discussing the same with their servant.

Page | 29

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

4. WHETHER THE ACT IS IN CONTRAVENTION WITH THE CONSTITUTION


OF INDIANA.
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 (hereinafter as Act.) is very much in
consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. All the children in the age
group of 16-18 years are treated equally and no two children in the age group of 16-18
years who commit a heinous offence are proposed to be treated differently under the current
Act. Hence, there will be not differential treatment of such children on any ground.

The new Act establishes a more robust, effective and responsive legislative framework for
children requiring care and protection, as well as children in conflict with law. Its
provisions responded to the perceptions, articulated by a wide cross-section of society for
the need to have an effective and strengthened system of administration of juvenile justice,
care and protection37.
The Supreme Court strongly emphasized for a development in the current legislation of
relating to juvenile offender in the case of Gaurav Kumar v. The State of Haryana38. The
court observed that,
The rate of crime and the nature of crime in which the juvenile are getting involved for
which the Union of India and the State Governments are compelled to file cases before this
Court to which the learned Attorney General does not disagree, have increased. A time has
come to think of an effective law to deal with the situation, we would request the learned
Attorney General to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities so that the relevant

37

Amendments to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, Press Information Bureau, 2015.

38

2015 (4) SCALE5 31.

Page | 30

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

provisions under the Act can be re-looked, re-scrutinize and re-visited, at least in respect of
offences which are heinous in nature.
The Act of 2015, which has replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has clearly
defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous, and defined differentiated
processes for each category. Keeping in view the increasing number of serious offences
being committed by persons in the age group of 16-18 years and recognizing the rights of
the victims as being equally important as the rights of juveniles, special provisions have
been made in the new Act to tackle heinous offences committed by individuals in this age
group39.
In recent years, there has been a spurt in criminal activities by adults, but not so by
juveniles, as the materials produced before us show40. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu
Vs. K. Shyam Sunder41, the court emphasized that,
Merely because the law causes hardships or sometimes results in adverse consequences,
it cannot be held to be ultra vires the Constitution, nor can it be struck down.

4.1 THE ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA.


The present act which has been amended is very well in consonance with the Articles
of the Constitution of Indiana. Further, the Section 3 under the General Principles of
Care and Protection of Children of the Act. states that there shall be no discrimination

39

Press Note of Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, Press Information Bureau, 2014.

40

Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 7 SCC 705.

41

(2011) 8 SCC 737.

Page | 31

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

against a child on any ground including sex, caste, ethnicity, place of birth, disability
and equality of access, opportunity and treatment to every child42.
Therefore, the Act. is in consonance with Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The procedures for treatment of
children who commit heinous crimes in the age group of 16 to 18 years are well laid
down in the Act. There is no arbitrariness in the current Act. with regard to procedure.
So, there is no violation of article 21 of the Constitution which provides for right to life
and personal liberty.
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 43. 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.
This is against the principles of natural justice and against the nature of an intelligent
civilized society.
The ultimate aim of juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the offender rather than to
exterminate him from the society. However, a person capable and mature to understand
his actions and its consequences, while committing the depravity of sin, if shields
himself under the false sheath of law, it does infringe jus naturale.

42

Section 3(x), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 Principle of Equality and Non-

Discrimination.
43

Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390.

Page | 32

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

4.2 THE ACT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN


RESPECT OF JUVENILES
The Republic of Indiana is a signatory to various conventions which protect the rights
of Children. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Child (hereinafter as
UNCRC) was ratified by the Republic of Indiana in 1992 and the 2000 Act was
consequently brought in to adhere to the standards set by the Convention. Specifically,
it is pointed out that the practice of statutory exclusion which ensures that perpetrators
of certain grave offences are prosecuted as adults; judicial waiver, granting discretion
to special juvenile courts to waive jurisdiction and transfer the juveniles case to an
ordinary court of law and also the policy of concurrent jurisdiction of both the ordinary
and juvenile courts giving discretion to the prosecutor to initiate proceedings in the more
suitable court are followed in foreign jurisdictions44.

The Act. Of 2015 maintains this aim and seeks to improve implementation and
procedural delays experienced by the 2000 Act. The UNCRC states that signatory
countries should treat every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not
try them as adults. However, many other countries who have also ratified the
Convention try juveniles as adults, in case of certain crimes. These countries include
the UK, France, Germany, etc. The United States is not a signatory to the UNCRC and
also treats juveniles as adults in case of certain crimes.

The provisions of various countries cannot be overlooked while dealing with such a
sensitive issue. In United Kingdom, Extended custodial sentences are given to young

44

Ibid.

Page | 33

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

persons if their crime is so serious that no other alternative is suitable, or if the young
person is a habitual offender, or if the Judge thinks the person is a risk to public safety.

In United States of America, the majority age is 18 years, but persons older than 14 years
may be tried as adults if they commit serious crimes (rape, robbery, murder etc.). The
state of New York pegs the age of juvenility at 16 years, and permits the prosecution of
persons aged between 13-16 years as adults in case of serious crimes.
In Nepal, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. A child is a person
below 16 years. A person between 16-18 years are charged and tried as adults under the
judicial system of Nepal.

Also, Countries like U.K. Canada and USA have departed from the obligations under
the UN Convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain
international commitments. However, by only becoming a mere signatory to the
convention does not make any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the
convention. It is only when then country has ratified such provisions, it becomes legally
bound to abide by them.

Page | 34

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON, 2016


INSTITUTE OF LAW, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Honble
Court be pleased to:

1. Dismiss this Special Leave Petition.


2. Hold that the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court and the Honble High
Court is correct.
3. Hold that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 is in
consonance with the Constitution of Indiana and International Conventions.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page | 35

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT