Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Summary of Arguments

    Uploaded by

    Drishti Tiwari
    13 views2 pages
    The document discusses arguments made by the applicant and respondent on several issues in an appeal case. For Issue 1, the applicant argues the appeal is maintainable under Article 136 while the respondent argues there is no locus standi. For Issue 5, the applicant argues the punishment is inadequate while the respondent says it is adequate. For Issue 6, the applicant argues the respondent deserves death for raping multiple minors, while the respondent argues the case does not meet the standard of "rarest of the rare" to warrant death.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    summary of arguments

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses arguments made by the applicant and respondent on several issues in an appeal case. For Issue 1, the applicant argues the appeal is maintainable under Article 136 while the respondent argues there is no locus standi. For Issue 5, the applicant argues the punishment is inadequate while the respondent says it is adequate. For Issue 6, the applicant argues the respondent deserves death for raping multiple minors, while the respondent argues the case does not meet the standard of "rarest of the rare" to warrant death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views2 pages

    Summary of Arguments

    Uploaded by

    Drishti Tiwari
    The document discusses arguments made by the applicant and respondent on several issues in an appeal case. For Issue 1, the applicant argues the appeal is maintainable under Article 136 while the respondent argues there is no locus standi. For Issue 5, the applicant argues the punishment is inadequate while the respondent says it is adequate. For Issue 6, the applicant argues the respondent deserves death for raping multiple minors, while the respondent argues the case does not meet the standard of "rarest of the rare" to warrant death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Issue 1

    Appl- It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the present appeal is
    maintainable under article 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 of the Constitution of
    India is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is
    injustice. The jurisdiction of SC can always be invoked when a question of law of general
    public importance arises. In the present case, the judgment by the HC is incorrect. Article 136
    uses the wording ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives widest power to this court to deal with
    any cause or matter, even if it involves question of fact. Therefore, the present petition is
    maintainable in the SC.

    Resp- It is humbly submitted before this Honourable SC that the petitioner has no locus
    standi to approach the Honourable SC because the present case does not involve any
    substantial question of law, the HC has considered the entire evidence properly and there has
    been no grave injustice. Also the SC will not interfere with the concurrent finding of the
    courts below unless of course the findings are perverse or vitiated by error of law or there is
    gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore in the present case, appeal is not maintainable.

    Issue 5

    Appl- It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the punishment sentenced is
    grossly inadequate and does not commensurate with the gravity of offence. The case satisfies
    the essentials of Section 375 IPC which proves that rape has been committed o the victim but
    the HC has awarded the sentence of imprisonment under section 354 IPC which makes the
    offence of sexual assault punishable. Also, deterrence must be brought in the society in order
    to curb such crimes.

    Resp- It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the punishment awarded to the
    respondent is adequate as the respondent has been held guilty of sexual assault and not rape
    by the HC even though acquitted by the trial court. Also, every person should be given a
    chance to reform and rehabilitate.

    Issue 6

    Appl- It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the respondent should be
    sentenced to death as he committed rape on not only the victim but other minor girls as well.
    Also the acts of the respondent make the case “rarest of the rare case”. Recent judgements, in
    support of the cause, have decided to award death sentence to those who commit rape on girls
    under 12 years of age.

    Resp- It is most humbly contented before the apex court that the respondent must not be
    awarded death sentence for the act of sexual assault on a young girl. A case has to be a
    proven “rarest of the rare cases” to be sentenced till death but the immediate case does not
    fall under the said category of cases.

    You might also like