MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019

BY
TEAM ‘N’
OF
MCT COLLEGE OF LAW, AIROLI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

PIL No.
(PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 14, 32 & 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT)

IN THE MATTER OF:

PEOPLE’S HUMAN RIGHT ASSOCIATION

(REGISTERED AS NON GOVERNMENT
ORGANISATION …….PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF MAHARAJYA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
MAHARAJYA, INDIVA ……RESPONDENT

GROUP MEMBERS:
TIWARI VISHAL KESHAV TIWARI
TRIPATHI AMIT KANHAIYALAL MANORMA
TUPE SANKET CHANDRAKANT SUVARNA
VYAPARI HEMANT VISHNU VANDANA
WAGH RAVIRAJ RAJENDRA NIRMALA
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr No TITLE Page no

1 Index of Authorities

2 Statement of Jurisdiction

3 Statement of Facts

4 Statement of Issues

5 Statement of Arguments

6 Written Pleadings

7 Prayer

8 Bibliography & Webliography

9 Exhibits: Impugned Orders of Hon’ble Courts

10 Judgements Relied upon by Petitioner

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Legislative Material:

1. The Constitution of Indiva

2. The Indiva Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Articles Referred:

1. Article 14, 32 and 136 of Constitution of Indiva.

Judgement Relied Upon:

1. Delhi HC Quashes President’s Order Rejecting Mercy Petition

Commutes Death Sentence Of Sonu Sardar To Life Imprisonment.

2. Extra-judicial Confession Of Accused Need Not Be Corroborated In All Cases:

SC: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee said in Ram Lal vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh.

3. Mani v. State of Kerala, Crl.A. No. 540 of 2019 01-04-2019

Abbreviations used:
1. IPC – Indiva Penal Code
2. CrPC – The code of criminal procedure, 1973
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present petition is filed by the Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 14, 32 & 136 of The Constitution of Indiva which
reads as follows:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) The Constitution of Indiva under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of
Indiva, the apex court of the country, with a special power to grant special leave,
to appeal against any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed
or made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of Indiva.

“That the Article 136 is a residual provision which enables the Supreme
Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in
Indiva in its discretion.”

The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Petitioner (mentioned in
the title clause which is an organization that works for non-profit/ charitable
purposes in the larger interest of the society and is registered under Section 8 of
The Companies Act, 2013) in violation of Article 14 and under Article 32 & 136
of the Constitution of Indiva thereby challenging the legal propriety of multiple
impugned orders made by different Hon’ble Authorities / Courts, hence the
present PIL.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA
PIL No.
(PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 14, 32 & 136 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT)

IN THE MATTER OF
ARTICLE 14, 32 & 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIVA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED ______ MADE BY
THE HON’BLE SESSIONS
COURT IN CASE
NO._______

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED ______ MADE BY
THE HON’BLE SESSIONS
COURT IN CASE
NO__________

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED ______ MADE BY
THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT IN CASE
NO._________

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED ______ MADE BY
THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT IN CASE
NO.______ IN 2013

AND
IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED ______ MADE BY
THE HON’BLE
PRESIDENT OF INDIVA IN
MERCY PETITION
NO.____MADE IN THE
2015.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPUGNED ORDER WITH
RESPECT TO ISSUANCE
OF BLACK WARRANT
DATED 11.09.2018 MADE
BY APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA
PIL No.

PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 14, 32 & 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT

IN THE MATTER OF:

PEOPLE’S HUMAN RIGHT ASSOCIATION

(REGISTERED AS NON GOVERNMENT
ORGANISATION …….PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF MAHARAJYA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
MAHARAJYA, INDIVA ……RESPONDENT

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
And His Lordship’s Companion Justices
of the Supreme Court of Indiva

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner

above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

 STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. The Petitioner states that it is an organization that works for non-profit/

charitable purposes in the larger interest of the society and is registered under
Section 8 of The Companies Act, 2013. The main purpose or objectives of the
Petitioner is to promote the non-profit objectives such, charity, education,
religion, environment protection, social welfare, mass awareness program/
campaign with respect to aforementioned topics and to protect and fight for the
rights of under privileged, weaker, deprived and uneducated sections of the
society. The Petitioner further states that profits/incomes of the Petitioner if any,
are applied towards promoting the aforesaid objectives and are not distributed as
dividends to its shareholders.

2.The Petitioner states that it is approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of Public
Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 136 of the Constitution of Indiva for
Issuance of Writ; since at the very heart of this issue is the most fundamental right
as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indiva Constitution has been violated. It is
pertinent to know that the Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiva provides for
equality before the law or equal protection within the territory of Indiva. The
State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of
law within the territory of Indiva.

According to Dr. Jennings: “Equality before the law means that equality
among equals the law should be equal for all. And should be equally
administered, that like should treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to
prosecute and prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all
citizens of full age and understanding without distinctions of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence.”
3. The Petitioner states that the Present PIL is based on information and facts
sourced from authentic information and documents obtained from various
governments departments/portals/RTI applications (if any).

4. The Petitioner states the factual matrix of the case for the sake for brevity
and is as follows:

a. That the alleged accused having the name and title as Mr. Rajesh alleged
to have murdered his wife in a drunken rage in his house and fled from
the crime scene and took shelter in his friend’s house having name and
title as Mr. Vicky before whom the accused had alleged to have made an
extra-judicial confession to him upon which he handed the accused to the
Police

b. That the accused was tried by Hon’ble Sessions Court and without
examining other witnesses only on the basis of aforementioned extra-
judicial confession for which he was convicted for offence under 302 IPC
and sentenced to life imprisonment in the year 2006.

c. That the Mr. Rajesh was sent to Central Prison Nampur. In prison, he met
with one Mr. Naresh and they become good friends. After they became
friends, Naresh put a proposal before Rajesh to marry his daughter.

d. That in the meantime, Rajesh was released on Bail by the Hon'ble High
Court of Maharajya in the year 2008. In 2009, The Marriage between
Rajesh and Naresh's Daughter was solemnized. Out of this wedlock they
were blessed with the twin baby boys.
e. That in the year 2012, the accused Mr. Rajesh upon suspecting the fidelity
of his wife. Later, in heated arguments between them about same and in
state of anger the accused Rajesh hacked his wife to death by an
agricultural spade. He then killed his two children who were sleeping
 and then tried to commit suicide. At that time, after hearing noise, the
neighbours rushed and overpowered him.
f. The matter was tried by the Hon’ble Session Court; the then Defense
lawyer did not cross examine witness of the prosecution nor did
produce any evidence on the record. Thereafter, Rajesh was sentenced
to death under Sec. 302, IPC by the Session Court for the reason that
Rajesh was on earlier convicted for an offense punishable u/s 302, IPC and
present case fall in the category of “Rarest of Rare” and Subsequently
High Court of Maharajya confirmed the death sentence awarded by the
sessions Court.
g. That in Appeal before the Supreme Court on Special Leave, the then
Defence counsel argued that the appeal against the punishable under Sec.
302, IPC for murdering his first wife is still pending before the Hon'ble
High Court of Maharajya and the punishment of Life imprisonment u/s
302 of IPC, only on the basis of extra judicial confession will vitiate the
very purpose of Justice.
h. That as regards to the second Conviction, it was argued that Rajesh was
not given a fair opportunity to defense and therefore the entire trial was
vitiated.
i. That the Division bench of Supreme Court could not reach to a reach a
consensus, the matter was referred to a third Single Judge. Third
Single Judge felt that there was no reason to interfere in matter and
confirmed the sentence of death in July 2013.
j. That the accused Mr. Rajesh then submitted a Mercy Petition in the year
2014 to President of Indiva which was rejected in the year 2015.
k. That late on 11th Sept 2018, the ‘Black warrant’ for the execution of
Rajesh has been issued by the appropriate authority.
4. QUESTIONS OF LAW / Statement Of Issues:

The following substantial questions of law arise for the consideration of this
Hon’ble Court:

A. In First Murder Case:

(i) Whether the Hon’ble Courts has failed to acknowledge the fact that the
accused has alleged to have murdered his wife in a drunken rage this
means that the accused was of not in a sound mind when he was
alleged to have committed the said offence?

(ii) Secondly the medical report or the blood report with respect to the
same providing details of the levels of alcohol being consumed is not
provided for which should have been done by the Registered Medical
Practitioner within 24 hours of his arrest as per Section 53, 53 A and
54 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iii) Whether in such case the accused can be convicted only on the basis of
extra judicial confession that too when is not in his senses and he is
highly drunk and No other evidence is produced or proved by the
Prosecution?
B. In Second Murder Case:

(i) Whether the Hon’ble Courts have conducted the trial in the shadow of
first offence whereas both the offence are to be tried on their own
merits and despite knowing the fact that the first matter (Appeal) was
pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the alleged second offence
was given a colour of ‘Rarest of Rare” so that the prejudice sets-in
since the beginning of the case?
(ii) Whether the Hon’ble Courts failed to take cognizance of the fact that
the second murder was an emotional outrage there was no
preparation and no weapon was recovered rather the impugned
conviction was given on the basis of Article (Agricultural Spade)
recovered and the same was used for alleged murder no.2 and in such
circumstance does it really invites section 302 of IPC?
(iii) Whether the Hon’ble Courts failed to take cognizance that the action
of Defense Lawyer was highly questionable since then Defense lawyer
did not cross-examine witness of the prosecution nor did produce any
evidence on the record? And why did the trial Court did not realize
that there appear to be back door dealing or hand in glove between
Prosecution and Defense Lawyer?
(iv) Whether this Hon’ble Court has failed to realize that reference which
was made by the Divisional bench of (this) Hon’ble Supreme Court
since they could not reach to a consensus to a third Single Judge
Stands illegal and completely vitiates the process of law? And Single
Judge has absolutely no Jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate a matter
which has been undecided by Divisional Bench of this Hon’ble Court?
5. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT / PRELIMINARY ISSUES
a. Whether the present petition is maintainable?
The Petitioner states that it is approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of Public
Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 136 of the Constitution of Indiva for
Issuance of Writ; since at the very heart of this issue is the most fundamental
right as enshrined in Article 14 of the Indiva Constitution has been violated as
aforestated in point no.2 in greater details.

b. Whether Fundamental Rights of the victim has been violated?

It is pertinent to know that the Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiva
provides for equality before the law or equal protection within the territory of
Indiva. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
equal protection of law within the territory of Indiva.

According to Dr. Jennings: “Equality before the law means thatequality

among equals the law should be equal for all. And should be equally
administered, that like should treated alike. The right to sue and be sued, to
prosecute and prosecuted for the same kind of action should be same for all
citizens of full age and understanding without distinctions of race, religion,
wealth, social status or political influence.”

c. It is Pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court in its recent Judgement
has set-aside the impugned order made by the Hon’ble President of Indiva
dismissing the mercy petition of the accused. Needless to say this Hon’ble
Court being the Apex Court of Indiva has more powers and jurisdiction
than that of any of the High Court’s present in Indiva and hence there is no
bar for this Hon’ble Court in admitting the present petition in the interest of
Justice.
6. WRITTEN PLEADINGS / GROUNDS:
The Petitioner States:

a. That it is pertinent to note that in both the murder cases no one has
observed and witnessed the accused committing the said alleged
offence.
b. That it is pertinent to note that the prosecution has completely failed to
prove or provide for “PREPARATION” made by accused in the
commission of the alleged offence.
c. In the First Murder Case:
i. That the accused was in a complete drunken stage and he was
not in his senses at the time of commission of said alleged
offence and also at the time of alleged Extra Judicial
confession. The Extra Judicial confession appears to be
coerced since no other material evidence is produced or
circumstances (motive) proved by the Prosecution in the said
matter
ii. That the Medical Report of the Registered Medical
Practitioner under Section 53, 53 A and 54 which was
mandated under the Cr. P.C. and the same was not supported or
produced by the Prosecution.
iii. That in the aforesaid circumstances the Section 302 of the
I.P.C is not applicable in the present matter.
iv. That the Prosecution story is based on rhetoric and not facts;
there is no evidence produced or being made out with respect
to the motive of the alleged accused and there was no recovery
of any weapon.
 v. That the present matter has been completely relied upon one
extra-judicial confession only and the cross examination and
due process of law was brazenly violated by the trial court
resulting in travesty of Justice.
vi. That the Petitioner craves and seeks to rely upon the Land-
Mark Judgement of this Hon’ble Court.
vii. The trial stands vitiated in the above circumstance and hence
the Orders made therein needs to be completely set-aside.

d.In the Second Murder Case:

i. That the Hon’ble Courts have conducted the trial in the shadow
of first offence whereas both the offence are to be tried on their
own merits and despite knowing the fact that the said matter
(Appeal) was pending before the Hon’ble High Court and was
given a colour of ‘Rarest of Rare” so that the prejudice sets-in
since the beginning of the case.
ii. That the Hon’ble Courts failed to take cognizance of the fact
that the second murder was an emotional outrage.
iii. That there was no preparation and not weapon was recovered
rather the impugned conviction was given on the basis of
Article (Agricultural Spade) which was used for alleged
murder no.2.
iv. That in aforesaid circumstances doesn’t invite section 302 of
IPC and it should be section 299 of the IPC.
v. That the Hon’ble Courts failed to take cognizance that the
action and conduct of Defense Lawyer was highly questionable
since then Defense lawyer did not cross examine witness of the
prosecution nor did produce any evidence on the record?
 vi. That the said act of the Defense lawyer appears to be hand in
glove or there appears to be back door dealing between
prosecution and defense and hence the proceeding stands
vitiated.
viii. That since the consensus could not reached by the Divisional
bench of this Hon’ble Court and hence the reference was made
by the Divisional bench of Supreme Court to a third Single
Judge stands illegal, bad in law and completely vitiates the
process of law and defeats the very purpose of administration
of Justice

e. That the looking at the aforementioned acts and relevant details the
manner in which the proceeding was carried out had beyond doubt
stands vitiated and this is quite plainly an egregious violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiva.

f. That we say that “Every Saint has a Past and Every Sinner has a
future” and Petitioner is relying upon the land-mark Judgement of this
Hon’ble Court.

g. That again the Petitioner states that “Justice Hurried is Justice

Burried”

h. That it is the bounden duty of the Hon’ble Courts to ensure that people
from lower strata of the Society should get fair opportunity and should
be treated in parity to prove their innonence.
7. The Petitioner states that the petition, if allowed, would benefit the citizens of
this country generally as rule of law is essential for democracy, thus
generating confidence in the Judiciary and such brazen violation of law by the
Respondents / Prosecution can be stopped by the orders of this Hon’ble Court
only.

8. The Petitioner states that they are filing the present writ petition in public
interest only. The petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the
petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person / institution /
body and that there is no motive other than of public interest in filing the
Present Public Interest Litigation. The Present PIL if allowed shall benefit lot
of who couldn’t afford or have no resource to reach this Hon’ble Court
seeking justice.

9. The Petitioner states that the persons affected by such acts of the State are
numerous and are not in a position to approach the Hon’ble Court hence the
Petitioner is filing the present PIL on behalf of such affected persons.

10.The Petitioner states that the present petitioner has not filed any other petition
in any High Court or the Supreme Court of Indiva on the subject matter of the
present petition.
PRAYER
In the light of above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to grant the following:
Ad-Interim / Interim Relief:
The Order issuing the “Black Warrant” by the Appropriate Authority needs to be
stayed or annulated or set-aside or quashed forthwith and without any delay.
Final Relief / Main Prayer:
In the Interest of Justice and also on the basis of grounds aforementioned, the
Petitioner prays as under:
a. The Annulment or Setting Aside or Quashing of All the earlier orders
made by all the Hon’ble Courts in Murder Case no. 1` & 2 respectively.
AND
b. The both the cases to be remanded back to the Court of Sessions (i.e. Trial
Court) for Re-Trial and further directing the Court to decide the matter in a
time-bound manner by abiding to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
respectively.
AND / OR
c. To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary
based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case by this Hon’ble
Court.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY

BOUND, EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

Name of the advocate

DATE:
Bibliography:
Indiva Penal Code by Shree K.D.Gaur

Webliography:
1. www.Indivakanoon.org
2. www.advocatekhoj.com
3. www.ssconline.com
4. www.legalcrystal.com
5. www.vakilno1.com
6. https://www.theguardian.com
7. www.livelaw.in