TEAM CODE- R4

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2021

IN THE HONOURABLE SC OF UNION OF SIND

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NUMBER 1920/2021

(UNDER ART.136 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF SIND)

IN THE MATTER OF:

JAVED REHMAN ………………………………………………………. PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHAZIA REHMAN ……………………………….…….…………………RESPONDENTS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-

-SHAZIA REHMAN-

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents

List Of Abbreviations 2
Index Of Authorities 3
1) CASES REFFERED 4
2) PRIMARY AUTHORITIES 4
3) STATUES 4
4) WEB REFRENCES 4
Statement of Jurisdiction 4
Statement Of Facts 5
Issues Raised 9
Issue 1 9
Whether the accused’s plea of natural justice is baseless? 9
Issue 2 9
Whether the respondents Right to Sexual Privacy along with her Right to live with Human
Dignity has been infringed as per article 21? 9
Issue 3 9
Whether the accused (Javed Rehman) is rightly convicted under Section 354 of the Sind Penal
Code? 9
Summary of Arguments 10
Arguments Advanced 11
Prayer 17

2
 List Of Abbreviations
__________________________________________________________________________________

List of Abbreviations Full Form

v Versus
Hon’ble Honourable
SPC Sind Penal Code
Govt. Government
No. Number

3
 Index Of Authorities
__________________________________________________________________________________

1) CASES REFFERED
a) “Rupan Deol Bajaj v KPS Gill” (1995) 6 SCC 194
b) “Sanjay Dutt v State”(1994) 6 SCC 86
c) “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India 2017” (10) SCALE 1
d) “Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan”AIR 1997 SC 3011
e) “State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan”AIR 1991 SC 207
f) “Raju Panduranga Mahale v State of Maharashtra” (2004) 4 SCC 371
g) “Aman Kumar v State of Haryana” (2004) 4 SCC 379
h) “Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and others”(2016) 15 SCC 619
i) “Francis Corallie Muin v. Union Territory of Delhi”AIR [1981] SC 802
j) “Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh” (2005) 8 SCC 12(3)
k) “Neera Mathur v. LIC” (1992) 1 SCC 286

2) PRIMARY AUTHORITIES
Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition)

The Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860), Professional Book Publishers (2013)

Lectures on Administrative Law, C.K Tatwani (2018)

3) STATUES
Indian Penal Code (Sind Penal Code)
a) Section 350
b) Section 351
c) Section 354
d) Section 509

Constitution of India (Sind)

a) Article 21

4
 4) WEB REFRENCES
a) www.scconline.com
b) https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf

Statement of Jurisdiction
__________________________________________________________________________________

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Sind Supreme Court under Art 136(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.The
respondents reserve the right to contest in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

Counsels for Respondents

5
 Statement Of Facts
__________________________________________________________________________________

DATE CONTENTS

June 20, 2016 Swati Bharadwaj was given the name Shazia in the ceremony of "Qubul Islam"

August 21, 2016 Javed and Shazia got married after duly complying with all the formalities of
Nikkah.

November 2, 2016 Javed decided to move in with his parents due to family issues.

January 6, 2020 Javed and Shazia moved in with Javed's parents.

January 2020 Shazia was asked to leave her job of teaching.

Multiple issues and fights affected the marital relation of Javed and Shazia.

In later instances, when Shazia was having heated arguments with her mother-in-
law, she would be badly scolded by Javed in front of his family members.

September 15, 2020 Attend the family function where Javed and Shazia got into a heated argument.

Javed pronounced Talaq thrice on Shazia in the presence of family and the
neighbours.

Shazia left her marital home and went back to her parent's house.

November 21, 2020 In the evening, Javed texted Shazia requesting her to meet him and discuss their
problems.

Shazia denied meeting him as she was alone at home and needed more time to
evaluate their relationship.

Javed visited Shazia's parents place in an intoxicated state.

They got into a heated argument and an angry Javed lost his control and forced

6
 himself on Shazia against her will and consent.

Shazia did not resist much and surrendered herself to Javed due to fear for her life.

November22, 2020 Shazia narrated her ordeal to her family and they lodged a complaint against Javed
for committing rape on Shazia at the nearest police station.

FIR No. 28/2020 registered by police under Section 375, Section 498A, Section
354, Section 321 under Sind Penal Code.

December, 2020 With the upcoming assembly elections conducted within a year, the case was
highlighted and widely debated in the media. Due to which a political issue was
made with respect to women safety and women rights in support of which many
women NGOs came forward and demanded justice for Shazia.

A charge sheet was filed against Javed within a month.

The case got expedited due the societal pressure and was concluded within 6
months.

May 28, 2021 The accused was not convicted for rape as the same could not be proved by the
State.

The accused was held guilty of the offence cruelty under section 498A and
convicted for two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed.

Further, held guilty foroutraging the modesty of women under section 354,
convicted for one-year simple imprisonment, and held guilty for other offences
related to women and convicted for 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs 10000/-
was imposed on Javed.

The court added that the aforesaid punishments shall run concurrently.

July 2, 2021 Javed lodged an appeal and contended it was not a fair trial and was more of a
media trial.

He claimed that his witnesses not heard at length, as the media had already
proclaimed him to be a rapist.

7
 Javed pleaded before the High Court to acquit him from all the charges as made
out against him.

August 10, 2021 Javed's petition was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was “upheld by
the order dated”

September 5, 2021 SLP filed before the SC.

Javed contended that his conviction under Sec 354 of the SPC was baseless, as
Shazia was still his legally wedded wife and no act of his directed towards Shazia
could be termed as 'Sexual Assault”

He also took a plea of natural justice and stated that the TC and HC violated his
natural justice as a fair trial was not provided and was influenced by the media
reports.

Javed also contended that the case was based on false allegation and Right to
Privacy was infringed and the reputation of his family was also tarnished.

8
 Issues Raised

Issue 1
Whether the accused’s plea of natural justice is baseless?

Issue 2
Whether the respondents Right to Sexual Privacy along with her Right to live
with Human Dignity has been infringed as per article 21?

Issue 3
Whether the accused (Javed Rehman) is rightly convicted under Section 354 of
the Sind Penal Code?

9
 Summary of Arguments
__________________________________________________________________________________

I. Whether the accused’s plea of natural justice is baseless?

The accused claims that he wasn’t provided a fair trial in both the courts namely, the
trial court and the high court which had violated his natural justice, for which the
reason was the direct influence of media reports during his trials, along with which his
right to privacy had also been infringed.

II. Whether the respondents Right to Sexual Privacy along with her Right to live
with Human Dignity has been infringed as per article 21?
The accused has infringed the victims Right to Sexual Privacy and Human Dignity
under Article 21 of Constitution of Sind as the accused came to the respondents place
un-announced even after her clearly telling him not to do so.

III. Whether the accused (Javed Rehman) is rightly convicted under Section 354 of
the Sind Penal Code?
The accused had been rightly convicted under Section 354 if the SPC as by coming to
the respondent’s house unannounced in an intoxicated state, and trying to force
himself upon her, he outraged her modesty.

10
 Arguments Advanced
__________________________________________________________________________________

I. Whether the accused’s plea of natural justice is baseless?

The petitioner claims that his natural justice1 has been violated by the trial court as
well as the high court which is untrue as both the principles of natural justice has had
been maintained.

The two principles of natural justice that the courts are ought to maintain are:

A) Nemo judex In Casua sua; No one can be made a judge in his own

cause or rule against bias

B) Audi Alteram Partem;Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or

the rule that no one should be condemned unheard.

In the case of “Javed Rehman v Shazia Rehman”, the appellant (Javed) accused trial
court as well as the high court to have failed in their approach and have violated his
natural justice by not providing him a fair trial, as according to him his trial was
influenced by media reports.

Media Trial:

Since the case of “Rupan Doel Bajaj v KPS Gill” was one of the most publicized
high-profiled legal cases in India and remained in the media limelight for many years,
it can be considered a case of media trial. The Plaintiff was highly praised in the
media for standing up against such a powerful police officer and for refusing to be
intimidated. She also declined to accept the monetary compensation which was then
donated to women’s organization by the court her only request to the Hon’ble bench
was to take away the Highly Respected Padma Shri given to KPS Gill along with the
govt.’s decision to strip the police officers convicted of “Moral Turpitude” of medals
and awards.
1 The term Justice according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth edition in page 942 means
the fair and proper administration of the law. Natural Justice is referred to a process whereby
Justice is served in a natural way devoid of bias and sentiment and under careful analysis,
thought and consideration.
11
 In the case of Javed Rehman v Shazia Rehman, according to Javed, he wasn’t
provided a fair trial because there was a heavy media involvement due to which he’s
public image along with his family’s image and right to privacy2 were infringed. The
case of “Sanjay Dutt v State3” can be referred for this as the media focused on the
issue to the point that the media painted him as a terrorist.Being an actor, he had to
deal with a lot of issues and uproar as a result of this occurrence, and his reputation
was ruined. Noticing this, the court held that he was not accused of those charges.

II. Whether the respondents Right to Sexual Privacy along with her Right to live
with Human Dignity has been infringed as per article 21?

2The right to privacy which was recognised as a fundamental right emerging primarily from
Article 21 of the constitution of India, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India
2017 (10) SCALE 1
3(1994) 6 SCC 86

12
 There had been an infringement of the respondents’ rights under Article 21 which
were namely:
Right to Sexual Privacyunder Article 21 of the Constitution of Sind ‘incorporates a
right to be allowed to sit unbothered and not aggravated.’ Any type of intense sex
damages the right of protection, sexual security. It is presented that the teaching of
marital exclusion to rape damages a wedded lady's entitlement to protection by
driving her to go into a sexual relationship without wanting to.

In the case of “Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan”4the Supreme Court extended This

right to privacy was also extended to working situations. In a similar manner, we may
deduce that even inside a marriage, there is a right to privacy when it comes to sexual
relationships. As a result, by decriminalizing rape within a marriage, the marital
exception teaching infringes on a married woman's right to privacy, making it
unlawful.

In the case of “State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan”5“As the Constitution

guarantees every woman the right to privacy, no one can invade it on their wish. She
is equally entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her
wish and has the equal protection of laws. Therefore, merely because she is a woman
of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard, and the only caution is to be
maintained.”

The Supreme Court also held that “every woman is entitled to her sexual privacy and
it is not open to for any and every person to violate her privacy as and whenever he
wished.”

Right to Human Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindin the case of
“Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and others”6, the Court saw that “The
Constitutional safeguard of human dignity expects us to recognize the worth and
value of all people as an individual of our society.”

In the case of “Francis Corallie Muin v. Union Territory of Delhi” 7The right to life,
as defined by Article 21 of the Constitution, was emphasized. In this case, Article 21
encompasses the right to live with human dignity and all that entails, to be specific,
4AIR 1997 SC 3011
5AIR 1991 SC 207
6(2016) 15 SCC 619
7AIR [1981] SC 802

13
 the basic necessities of life, such as adequate nutrition, garments, and shelter over
one's head, as well as facilities for reading, writing, and express feelings in various
forms, as well as the freedom to move about and mix and mingle with other people.
The right to live with human dignity is one of the most essential components of the
right to life, since it determines a person's individuality. In judgments, the Supreme
Court has ruled that rape ‘violates the victim's right to life and the right to live with
dignity.’

In the cases of “Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh”8,“Neera Mathur v. LIC”9under

the scope of Article 21, the Supreme Court believes that a right to privacy is
inherently protected. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy,
which includes the right to be able to sit without being harassed or agitated. The right
to protection and sexual security is harmed by any form of vigorous sex. It is argued
that teaching marital exclusion to rapists jeopardizes a married woman's right to
protection by forcing her into a sexual relationship she does not desire.

In the case of “Javed Rehman v Shazia Rehman”, after two and a half months of
Shazia leaving her marital home, she avoided any kind of contact with Javed as after
the incident she was in a state of shock. Later, Javed had arrived at Shazia’ place un-
announced on the evening of 21st November, 2020 in an intoxicated state, while she
was alone and due to their strained relations,they got into a heated argument,
eventually Javed lost his control and forced himself upon Shazia against her will and
consent. This occurrence was a violation of Shazia’s Right to Sexual Privacy and
Right to Human Dignity.

III. Whether the accused (Javed Rehman) is rightly convicted under Section 354 of
the Sind Penal Code?

8(2005) 8 SCC 12 (3)

9(1992) 1 SCC 286

14
 The petition is maintainable under Section 354 of the SPC which states that “assault10
or criminal force11 to woman with intent to outrage her modesty12. Whoever assaults
or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely
that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be lessthan one year but which may
extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
In the case of Javed Rehman v Shazia Rehman, Section 354 of the SPC is not
baseless, because Javed had previously in an intoxicated stated had lost his control
and had forced himself upon the respondent, Mrs. Shazia Rehman against her will and
consent. This behavior of Javed made Shazia fear for her life and this clearly is an
instance of assault, criminal force, and later on outraging her modesty.
A few landmark case laws used as a precedence for the case of Javed Rehman v
Shazia Rehman are:

10Under Section 351 of the SPC, assault is defined as“Whoever makes any gesture, or any
preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause
any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to
use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.”

11Section 350 of SPC defines criminal forces as, “Whoever intentionally uses force to
any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence,
or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the
use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the
force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”

12In the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court
inferred “the essence of the woman’s modesty as her sex”. The judgement defined
“modesty” as “an attribute associated with female human beings as a class and a
virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex”. Since the word “modesty” has
not been defined in the Sind Penal Code, the judgement quoted the definition as in
Shorter Oxford Dictionary) in relation to a woman.

15
 In one of the landmark cases of “Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
& Anr.”13
Facts:Gill was charged and convicted of outraging a woman's modesty under Section
354 and insulting a lady under Section 50914 of the IPC for his actions against Rupan
Deol Bajaj.She filed a complaint against KPS Gill, alleging that he had violated her
modesty by patting her posterior during a reception held by then-Punjab Financial
Commissioner S L Kapoor in Chandigarh on July 18, 1988.

JUDGEMENT:The charges against KPS Gill and his conviction for the crime were
maintained by the Supreme Court of India in 2005. The Punjab and Haryana High
Court reduced his three-month jail sentence to probation; thus, he was saved from
serving it. KPS Gill was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200,000, to serve 3 years of
probation, and to be imprisoned sternly for 3 months and gently for 2 months.The
monetary compensation was turned down by Plaintiff. It was ordered by the court to
be given to feminist organizations.   The conviction was affirmed and the jail
sentences were reduced to probation after final appeals to the Supreme Court of India
in July 2005.

In another landmark case of Section 354 of the SPC, “Raju Pandurang Mahale v
State of Maharashtra”15, the offenders act of pulling a woman, removing her saree,
coupled with a request for sexual intercourse constituted the offence under Section
354 of the SPC. The court opined that the culpable intention forming the crux of the
matter, it a can be concluded that the act of the offender reflected his guilty intention,
Mens Rea16. The court further held that the act of the accused was sufficient to violate
the normal sense of female decency and thus, amounted to outrage or modesty.

13(1995) 6 SCC 194

14Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any
sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or
that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine.
15(2004) 4 SCC 371
16The state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction, must prove that a defendant
had when committing a crime; criminal intent or recklessness
16
 Prayer
__________________________________________________________________________________

In the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied, the
Respondent most humbly and respectfully prays and requests the HonourableCourt:

1. To, not consider the plea of natural justice of the Petitioner as it has not been violated.
2. To, take into consideration the infringement of the respondents Rights to Sexual
Privacy along with Right to Human Dignity and sentence the accused accordingly.
3. To, convict the accused of Section 354 of SPC with the punishment the Hon’ble court
may deem fit in the eyes of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the Respondent shall be
duty bound as ever pray.

Sd/-
COUNCIL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

17