1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………………………….…………………….(3)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………………….(4)

List of cases listed…………………………………………………………………………………(4)

List of statue………………………………………………………………………………………...(4)

List of books…………………………………………………………………………………………(4)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………....…………………...  (5)

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………………….(6-7)

ISSUE RAISED………………………………………………………………………………………...(8)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….………(8-10)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………….……… ..(11-24)

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………..(25)

2
 

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Abbreviations Full forms

SC Supreme court

Hc High court

Air All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honorable

v./(v/s) Versus

Oth/An. Others

& And

U/S Under Section

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES & BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF CASES REFFERED

1)Dhananjay chaterjee v.s union of India 15)Poulter’s case (, 77eng .rept 813)
(1998)4 SCC456(462)
2)State v.s Nalini 16) Sc in interstate circuit vs. USA
(1999) 5 SCC (253) Us , 306 u.s 208
3)Yates v. United States 1957 )354 U.S. 298 17)USA v/s BRUNO (105 ,2d 1921)
pp. 1153–1154).
4) Maharashtra & Ors. v.s Som Nath Thapa 18) R v.s Jenkins (2002)VSCA 224; 6VR
(1996) 4 SC (659) 81
5) Randhir Singh v.s State of Punjab 19)KHUSHAL RAO v/s STATE OF
(2004) 5 SCR (351) MAHARASHTRA (AIR 22 ,1958 SCR 552)
6) Ramesh kumar v.s state of Chhattisgarh 20)Suraj Deo Ojha v/s state of Bihar
(2001) 4 SCR ( 247) (AIR 1979 sc1505)
7) Wazir chand v.s State of Haryana 21) Munna raja &anr, v/s state of MP
(AIR 1976 SCR (2)764)
8) Brij Lal v.s Prem Chand 22)STATE OF UP v/s Madan mohan
AIR (1989) SC 1661 (AIR 1989 sc 1519 )
9) P.V.Radhakrishna v.s State of Karnataka 23)Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin vs. State
(2001) 6 SCC ( 118) of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 885)
10)Uka Ram v.s State of Rajasthan 24)Van Riper Vs. United States [13 F 2d 961
(2001) SC.1814 at page 967] 
11)Subramanian swamy v/s union of India
( 2016) 7 SCC (221)
12)Delfi vs Estonia
(2015) 64669/09
13)Madhya Pradesh vs Vikram Das
( 2019 SC 835)
14) Mahesh v/s State of Madhya
Pradesh(1987)3SCC 80(82)

LIST OF STATUTES &AGREEMENTS REFFERED

Constitution Of India, 1950 Indian Evidence Act ,1872 Information &technology

Act , 2000

4
Indian Penal Code ,1860 Criminal Procedure Code, Communication Act ,1934
1972

BOOKS
J.N PANDEY RATANALAL DHIRAJLAL UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATION
K.D GAUR R.V KELKAR

Statement of Jurisdiction  

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ORIENT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
ORIENT,1950

THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THE

HON’BLE APEX COURT IS READ HEREIN UNDER AS.

ARTICLE 132 Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court

(1)Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases ( 1 ) An
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in
the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies
under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as t the interpretation of
this Constitution.

5
(2) OMITTED

(3)Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on
the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the
purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if
decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

● Here , this case revolves around six persons namely Dauphin Cooper , Philip Cooper,  Heera
Bisht alias Dapu his associates such as Peter Williams , Daniel Thomas and Neelima Riddle.
● Dauphin Cooper , aged 32 is a educated and rich corporate heir and also a respectable
politician who is holding high position in various trusts in the state of Seola.
● In 2018,Seola state government invites tender for construction of a bridge named as “Sohaner
Express”  and it was won by Dauphin’s company names as “Bourbon Constructions” as it
was 1 rupee less than the “Natraj Builders” owned by his competitor , belong to family of
former MLA , Heera Bisht , aged 30 and from here he had the grudge against Dauphin.
● After few weeks of winning the tender , Dauphin and his brother Phillip started receiving
abusive and threat calls from unknown number and demeaning comments and post on their
social media by Heera and his associates named Peter Williams and Daniel Thomas.
● Dauphin also lodge a complaint of all these acts to police but unfortunately due to inability of
police they cannot find the harassers and informed that the calls were coming from stolen
phone and also added by stating that sec. 66A of IT  Act  which was the only remedy in cases
of cyber bullying and it was declared unconstitutional by court by saying it violates article
19(1)(a) of the constitution of Orient .
● As Heera got this news that Dauphin tried to lodge the complaint against him, he started to
upload offensive and annoying pictures on social media by replacing Dauphin’s face from
others and tagged both brothers regularly .

6
● Now, he used his girlfriend Neelima Riddle to take revenge from Dauphin . she made a fake
profile by name Joel Simpson , and followed Dauphin in various social media and messaged
him to sexually assault her to avenge all offensive acts done by Heera against Dauphin but
cooper denied this idea and shared screenshot of this chats in social media in order to get
some information about this account .
● Here one of the associates of Heera named Peter used this screenshot of dauphin’s and
misinterpreted it with malice intention in order to defame Dauphin . After this Neelima made
post on 22nd  march 2019 and alleged #METOO against Dauphin for sexually harassing her
and also lodged FIR for same , on the same day dauphin’s account was hacked and someone
messaged the apology for his acts to Neelima and at the same time action was taken against
dauphin and his appealed for anti bail u/s 438 CRPC was rejected by HC and he was called
for inquiry and his statement was recorded u/s 161  CRPC where he don’t even know who
Neelima is and all this happened because of Heera and associates which also includes
Neelima wanted to defame him.
● Later he was arrested and proceeding was initiated u/s 354 OPC , again bail application was
filed u/s 439 CRPC and was approved , soon after the bail on 30th april 2019, Dauphin told
his brother Phillip that he wants to end his life as he couldn’t bear this acts of cyber bullying
and false allegations and on the same day he hung himself from ceiling fan in his house and
left dying declaration stating that “his life turned into hell due to consistent bullying from
Heera and his friends and Neelima’s false allegations made him feel that no option is left
other than ending his life in order to evade from this mental harassment .”
● After this, his brother Phillip filed an FIR to seek justice for his brother and soon this case
came into limelight and police after facing pressure by the media found out that the social
media account of Dauphin was hacked on the day when a message of apology was sent to
Neelima .  A case was registered against NEELIMA, HEERA , PETER, DENIEL  u/s 306,
120B.500 of OPC and u/s 66C of IT act 2000.
● But the trial court acquitted HEERA and his friends due to lack of evidence against them and
only Neelima was tried u/s 500 for putting false allegations against Dauphin and defamed
him and awarded imprisonment of 6 months along with a fine of  Rs 5000. And all were

7
 acquitted and not tried under sec 306 of OPC and court said that mere note of deceased
person is not sufficient to charge in any person under section 306 , they have to prove that
there were nature of instigating , provoking , forcing victim to commit suicide were present .
● Then Phillip  appealed against the judgment of trial court in HC but Hon’ble HC upheld the
judgment of trial court and dismissed the appeal, whereas on the appeal of Neelima , HC
allowed her appeal and reduced her punishment only to fine of Rs. 5000 considering that she
was four month pregnant and punishment of imprisonment will lead to harm the health of
her child.
● Now in order to get justice to his brother Phillip filed an appeal in hon’ble supreme court of
orient and case listed for final arguments on 29/08/2020 .

ISSUES RAISED 

ISSUE : I

❖ WHETHER THIS APPEAL AMOUNTS TO BE MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE : II

8
❖ WHETHER THE ORDER UPHELD BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SEOLA IS
ERRONEOUS AND IMPUNGED ?]

ISSUE :III

❖ WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE ANY DIRECTIONS REGARDING THE

SAME AS CYBER BULLYING HAS KNOW BECOME SILENT KILLER FOR THE
PEOPLE OF COUNTRY AS DEATH RATIO DUE BULLYING IS ON INCREASE ?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE : 1

❖ WHETHER THIS APPEAL AMOUNTS TO BE MAINTAINABLE ?

✔ It is humbly submitted in front of this Hon’ble Court that access to justice and fair trial is a
fundamental right provided to every citizen of ORIENT under article 14 and 21 and appeal
which is filed before this Hon’ble court is maintainable as appellant suffered injustice from
both the trial court and high court because both respectable courts provided the judgment
without merits and not considering the evidences which are clearly providing the directions
and cause of the action like suicide against the respondents .

9
✔ Moreover here in this case the deceased is suffered without any cause and fault from his side
and faced false allegations , mental torture , harm and loss of his reputation in society and
many other ill and evil consequences due to malice and grudge of respondents towards him
and there conspiracy at last resulted into the death of the deceased which violates the
fundamental right if the deceased to live the life with dignity , right to reputation and right to
live with peacefully which belonged to ARTICLE 21.

✔ The court must see the whole brief of case along with the cause and consequences faced by
the deceased with the major evidences which are already present in case itself but not
considered or linked by the lower courts by taking into account all of this acts and injustice to
the appellant appeal is filed in this court in order to get justice .

ISSUE : II

❖ WHETHER THE ORDER UPHELD BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SEOLA IS

ERRONEOUS AND IMPUNGED ?

✔ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the appellant ( the brother of the
deceased ) filed this appeal in front of this court with the intention to review the whole case
as it seems that the crimes done by the respondents are as transparent as “water in the glass
bottle” but respondents here in this case are provided with blanket immunity on each and
every charges without no reasons and at the end even Neelima who is charged u/s 500 OPC
is been granted with reduction in punishment of fine only .
✔ Heera , Peter , Daniel , Neelima all with the malice intention to mentally torture the deceased
and to defame him in front of the society planned to attack his image which was very
respected and dignified by their malice acts and fake allegations .
✔ All of them with their proper team work contributed from there sides let it be in cyber
bullying , defamation , or fake allegations this ingredients of act seems to be present in the
provisions of section 120-B which is known as conspiracy under OPC and there acts further
CONNECT THE CAUSE OF ACTION , which abets the deceased and with no option other

10
 than ending the life of the deceased leads to charge u/s 306 Abetment to suicide in OPC
.where as act under malice to harm someone’s reputation is also considered an essential
element u/s 500 punishment of defamation .

ISSUE :III

❖ WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE ANY DIRECTIONS REGARDING THE

SAME AS CYBER BULLYING HAS KNOW BECOME SILENT KILLER FOR THE
PEOPLE OF COUNTRY AS DEATH RATIO DUE BYLLING IS ON INCREASE ?

✔ As Sec 66A OF IT ACT , 2019 was declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble apex court
which included specific provisions for cyber bullying and injury to someone’s reputation by
that act & appellant in public welfare by this appeal also want that nobody else should suffer
from this type of trauma in future and commit suicide due to such acts of people .
✔ People specifically on social media under the blanket immunity of freedom of speech are
now a days doing and performing the acts which certainly affect the life of ordinary men by
targeting , trolling , making offensive memes and using photos of the victims without their
permission which also violates their rights but create deep impact on their minds and life .

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE : 1

❖ WHETHER THIS APPEAL UNDER AMOUNTS TO BE MAINTAINABLE?

✔ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the learned Hon’ble judge relied with
the petitioner because in this case there is a clear partiality of justice been done and
investigation unit was failed to analyze the case and was not even able to take any action on
the complaint filed by the deceased till his death.

11
✔ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’able court that the appeal was raised by the petitioner
Phillip , brother of deceased who is considered as a victim u/s 2 (wa) CRPC which states
that a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for
which the accused person has been charged and the expression victim includes his or her
guardian or legal heir. Hence , here the petitioner has the “LOCUS STANDI ” to appeal and
seek for the justice for his deceased brother.

✔ In the case of Dhananjay chaterjee v/s union of India1wherein the court said that the
measures of punishment in the given case must be depend on the atrocity of crime ; the
conduct of the criminal and defenseless and unprotected state of victim . Imposition of
appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the society ‘s cry for the
justice against the criminals. The court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that
the court reflects public abhorrence of the crime.

✔ The court must not keep must not only keep in view the right of the criminal but also the
victim( in this case the deceased who died) and the society the large while considering ,
imposition of appropriate punishment.
Similarly , in Mahesh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh 2Which was a case of multiple murders
committed in a brutal manner, the apex Court said:

It will be a mockery of justice if criminals are permitted to escape the extreme penalty of law
when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give a lesser punishment for the
criminals would be rendering the justice system of this country suspect. The common man
will lose faith in Courts. In such cases he understands and appreciates the language of
deterrence more than the reformative jargon.

1
(1998)4 SCC456(462)
2
1987)3SCC 80(82)

12
✔ The appeal if not maintained by this Hon’ble Court, than it would be a failure of judicial
mechanism which ensures every citizen and every non-citizen i.e., protection by law. The
appeal to this Hon’ble Court is a mode for justice but in case if this appeal is declared not
maintainable , then the victim of the crime(deceased) would be the only sufferer of this
catastrophe and respondents would be the most beneficial of this crime with a reckon of this
Court.

ISSUE : II

❖ WHETHER THE ORDER UPHELD BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SEOLA IS

ERRONEOUS AND IMPUNGED ?

✔ It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the High court of Seola state upheld the
judgment of trail court and not considered the appeal of Phillip though all the evidence in this

13
 case speaks itself the whole facts which was happened and acquitted all the respondents from
all the charges and even decreased the punishment upto fine only.

✔ Grounds along with judgment cited for the application of SECTION 120B in the case:

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy,
be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
✔ So here in this case , the planned actions of all HEERA , PETER ,DANIEL ,NEELIMA are
very clear with the intention to harm /defame the dignified reputation of the deceased in the
society which was most precious for him and was very well known by all of the respondents
that , he will not certainly accept and can bear the acts of harassment and false allegations
which leads to defame him and all conspired and played their roles even Peter with the same
malice intention changed the message and than forwarded to create false public opinion and
latter Neelima also by false sexual harassment allegations tried to fulfill the objective of
their conspiracy.

✔ Further supporting my arguments it was also stated in landmark judgment of State v/s
Nalini3 by this apex court “the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are i) an
agreement between two or more persons :ii)the agreement must relate doing or causing to
be done either a)an illegal act ;or b) an act which is not illegal by itself but is done by
illegal means , it is therefore plain that meetings of minds of two or more persons for

3
(1999) 5 SCC (253)

14
 doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means sine quo non of
criminal conspiracy ”.
✔ In this case all the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are present , by considering the facts
provided above , in order to attract the provisions of criminal conspiracy there is no need
to have an agreement in written form A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive
attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of
the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and
goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the
conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime only
doing the act with same intention by knowing the presence of each other is enough to
enter under the ambit of 120B.
✔ Further supporting my arguments it was in the case Yates v. United States4 here US court
stated that “There is a serious question as to whether the act of agreement is not too
slender a reed to support such a vast extension of conspiracy law. First, agreement—a
"conscious union of wills upon a common undertaking" is an act primarily mental in
nature. “This is emphasized by the fact that parties to an agreement need not
communicate directly; a tacit understanding may constitute an agreement.
✔ Again another rule of criminal conspiracy was discussed in the case of State of
Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa5 & Ors.,whereit was observed that, “for a
person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were
wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse
to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.

✔ The following passage from Van Riper Vs. United States6 was quoted. "Such declarations
are admitted upon no doctrine of the law of evidence, but of the substantive law of crime.
When men enter into an agreement for an unlawful end, they become ad hoc agents for

4
(1957 )354 U.S. 298 pp. 1153–1154).
5
(1996) 4 SC (659)
6
13 F 2d 961 at page 967]

15
 one another, and have made 'a partnership in crime'. What one does pursuant to their
common purpose, all do, and as declarations may be such acts, they are competent against
all." we may recall that Section 10 of the Evidence Act provides that anything said, done
or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention of all of them
can be proved as a relevant fact as against each of the conspirators, subject to the
condition prescribed in the opening part of the section. Thus, the evidence which is in the
nature of hearsay is made admissible on the principle that there is mutual agency amongst
the conspirators.
✔ Grounds along with judgment cited for the application of SECTION 306 in the case :

Section 306 OPC : ABETMENT OF SUICIDE;

✔ Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

✔ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court, that the planned actions of all HEERA ,
PETER , DANIEL,NEELIMA are very clear with the intention to harm /defame the dignified
reputation of the deceased in the society which was most precious for him and was very well
known by all of the respondents that , he will not certainly accept and can bear the acts of
harassment and false allegations which leads to defame him and abetted him to commit
suicide in order to get evade of this continuous mental harassment ,all conspired and played
their roles .
✔ Even Peter with the same malice intention played his role in conspiracy and changed the
message and than forwarded to create false public opinion and latter on Neelima also by
false sexual harassment allegations and tried to fulfill the objective of their conspiracy, all
this latter leads to act which the respondents abetted and want to be performed by the
deceased i.e committing suicide as all the respondents had not made any mistakes in playing
their roles under conspiracy , which left no other door for the deceased due to which
respondents should be liable u/s 306 .

16
✔ Further supporting my argument it is also stated in the landmark judgment of In Randhir
Singh v. State of Punjab7 the Supreme Court two judge(bench of Arijit Pasayt & C.K
Thakker ) held as follows :

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person
in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering
into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as
Instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting
the commission of offence under Section 306, IPC. (Para 12) ”.

✔ Again in the landmark case of Ramesh kumar vs .state of Chhattisgarh (BENCH ;

dr.AS.CJ, R.C LAHOTI ,K.G Balakrishnan)8 the apex court elucidated on the term
instigates and “stated that instigation means to goad ,urge ,provoke ,incite ,or encourage to
do an act .” here the acts done by the respondents clearly shows that it incited the deceased
to take that step of suicide.
✔ As in this case the respondents can also be charged u/s 107 OPC but as the law insist the
precedents stated that if 306 and 107 read together , petitioner don’t want to create
allegations under section 107 on the respondents . further supporting my arguments I would
also like to submit another judgment of the apex court .

✔ In Wazir chand v. State of Haryana9 , the Supreme Court observed as follows : “Reading
Sections 306 and 107 together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to
commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the
person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under Section 306 of the Penal Code
for abetting the commission of suicide.”
✔ In Brij Lal v. Prem Chand 10 the Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 306 and 107The
Supreme Court while rendering the above Judgment further observed as follows : “As to
what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the

7
(2004) 5 SCR (351)
8
(2001) 4 SCR ( 247)
9

10
AIR (1989) SC 1661

17
 facts of each case. Therefore, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation
the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus
of the entire evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be
viewed or tested in isolation. Such being the case, the instigative effect of the words used by
the accused must be judged on the basis of the distraught condition to which the accused had
driven ”.

✔ The Hon’ble High court when appealed to charge the respondents under section 306 stated
that “merely because a person who has committed suicide has left a dying declaration , one
cannot immediately jump to the conclusion and that it is enough to charge the accuses with
criminal liability under section 306 OPC. ” I would also like to again refer the judgment
(supra. Brijlal v. prem chand).

✔ Now , in this case as above mentioned the conspiracy was done which leads to suicide by the
deceased , how and in which way is already mentioned above this is the first and foremost
evidence to charge the respondents for 306 and moreover apart from this dying declaration
was found written by the deceased and as per law of evidence u/s 32(1) of evidence act states
that

SECTION 32(1) OF EVIDENCE ACT 1872

when it relates to cause of death. —When the statement is made by a person as to the cause
of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his
death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such
statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when
they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the
proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.

✔ Here in this definition two most important aspects are provided and which is 1)circumstances
of the transaction resulted in his death , 2)cause of that person’s death comes into question .
✔ Here in the dying declaration both the essential ingredients are present :

18
 1) Circumstances of transaction resulted into death – cyber bullying , false allegations
,mental torture from Heera and his friends
2) Cause of that person’s death comes into question – Neelima’s false accusation of
sexual harassment which atlast defame him in such a manner that injured his dignity of
life and left no option left other than suicide.
✔ Deceased person (dauphin) left the dying declaration which stated that “his life turned into
hell due to consistent cyberbullying from HEERA and his FRIENDS and the false
allegations of Neelima against him was the final nail in his coffin which made him feel
that he had no option left other than ending his life in order to evade constant mental
torture. ” there is no reason to believe that any person at the time of his death will speak or
provide wrong statement or false cause of his death.
✔ Now before moving further it is also provided under the set principle of dying declaration
known as “ Leterm Mortem ” "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire - No one at the point
of death is presumed to lie." “A man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth” - Is
the PHILOSOPHY in law underlying admittance in evidence of dying declaration.
✔ Also stated by The Apex Court in its decision in P.V.Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka11
held that the principle on which a dying declaration is admitted in evidence is indicated a
Latin maxim, Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire, a man will not meet his maker with a
lie in his mouth. Information lodged by a person who died subsequently relating to the cause
of his death is admissible in evidence under this clause.

✔ Further supporting my argument in the Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan12 apex Court held
that, when a statement is made by a person as to cause of his death or as to any circumstance
of transaction which resulted into his death, in case in which cause of his death comes in
question is admissible in evidence such statement in law is called dying declaration.
Following are the classes of person who cannot be called as witness under section 32 and
their statements allowed to be proved in their absence:
1) Person who is dead

11
(2001) 6 SCC ( 118)
12
2001) SC.1814

19
2) Person who cannot be found
3) Who has become incapable of giving evidence or
4) Whose attendance cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense

The Conditions in this Section are:

1) It must be a statement, written or verbal

2) The person making statement must have died.
3) The statement relating to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction which
related in his death and not the cause of the death of someone else.
4) The cause of the person's death must be in question.
5) The person making statement must be in a fit condition to make the statement.
6) The statement must be competent
7) Declaration must be competent
✔ As per the definition and the following cases laws as precedents we can observe that all the
essential conditions necessary for any dying declaration to be considered as an evidence was
present in note written by the deceased with all cause and consequences which also raise
along with question of death in order that respondent by only considering that note can tried
u/s 306 itself.
✔ Moreover the brother of deceased Phillip is also the witness of all the contents written in
dying declaration as before Dauphin died he conveyed that he wants to end his life because
of Heera and his friends and cannot bear false allegations of Neelima any more . here
Phillip is also the witness of the declarations and the consequences from which the deceased
had gone through so far.
✔ So it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble court that by considering all above evidences
which are very transparent and also dying declaration fulfilling all the essentials u/s 32(1)
the respondents should be liable u/s 306 OPC.
✔ Grounds along with judgment cited for the application of SECTION 500 in the case:

Section 499 defines Defamation.—

20
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the
feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or

an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount
to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of
that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or
lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 500 Punishment for defamation.—

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

✔ It is humbly submitted that Right to live with Dignity , Right to live with peace are the basic
rights provided to every citizen of Orient under article 21 , but this rights are violated in this
case as Heera and his friends including Neelima by the way of conspiracy defamed the
reputation of the deceased in society by making modifying pictures which were offensive in
nature and posting it on social media which outrages the reputation of a person ,also by
making false allegations of the heinous crimes like sexual harassment on the deceased ,by
knowing the real fact by Neelima that nothing such happened but to only & only harm the

21
 reputation of Dauphin she did it to lower his dignity in society which further became
unbearable by him and the reason of his suicide.
✔ Freedom of speech and expression is granted under article 19 (1) to all the citizen but also
with reasonable restrictions under 19(2).
Article 19(1) state that :

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech

Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.
✔ Further supporting my arguments it is also stated by A two judge bench of Hon’ble justice
Dipak misra & P. C. Pant in landmark case of Subramanian swamy v/s union of India13
decided the case in which constitutional validity of section 499 and 500 is challenged and it
was quoted by the bench “The challenge before the court was twofold – first, whether
criminalizing defamation is an excessive restriction on freedom of speech, and second,
whether the criminal defamation law under Sections 499 and 500 is vaguely phrased and
hence arbitrary. the Court held that Section 499 is not an excessive restriction under Article
19(2). It held that society is a collection of individuals, and what affects individuals also
affects the society as a whole. Hence, it held that it is valid to treat defamation as a public
wrong. It held that criminal defamation is not a disproportionate restriction on free speech,
because protection of reputation is a fundamental right as well as a human right. he Court
relied on the judgments of other countries and reaffirmed the right to reputation as a part of

13
(2016) 7 SCC (221)

22
 the right to life under Article 21. Using the principle of ‘balancing of fundamental rights’,
the court held that the right to freedom and speech and expression cannot be “allowed so
much room that even reputation of an individual which is a constituent of Article 21 would
have no entry into that area”.
✔ Every human being is living on this earth is somehow living with his name and image let it be
a celebrity or a common men but destroying his image is the biggest thing one can do in a
crime. Further , ( William Shakespeare) quoted IAGO Good name in man and woman, dear
my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis
something, nothing: 'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands. But he that
filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him .And makes me
poor indeed.
✔ Further in international court of justice also given their view in the case Delfi v Estonia14
and punished the accused for offensive comments by him the social media account and the
website stating that “free speech did not allow to speak and comment about others in such
away that harms the image of the person even though they are the personal views of the
commenter but he has no right to infringe the right of reputation of others.” the same facts
are here in this case considering the acts of HEERA AND HIS FRIENDS .
✔ Here in this case the Hon’ble High court has rejected this appeal by not considering the
treasury of evidences found in this case which are all against the respondents & allowed the
appeal of Neelima of reducing punishment of imprisonment and punishment reduced and
limited by fine only of rupees 5000 only means a person who died due to the malice intention
and ill acts of the respondents & today they are moving freely without any punishment and
paying fine of 5000. As there are no such specific provision which allows pregnant women to
be acquitted from charges all the accused are same according article 14 in eyes of law .

✔ Further it was stated in the State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Vikram Das15 “In view of aforesaid
judgments that where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than
the minimum sentence. It is also held that provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot

14
(2015) 64669/09
15
2019 SC 835

23
 be resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence. Though The conviction has
been disputed by before the High Court as the quantum of punishment alone was disputed.
Thus, the High Court could not award sentence less than the minimum sentence
contemplated by the Statute in view of the judgments referred to above.
✔ Section 66C of IT ACT 2000 Punishment for identity theft. -Whoever, fraudulently or
dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification
feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may extend to
rupees one lakh. Here one thing is implied and also latter investigated that the whole
conspiracy revolves around this four respondents so account of dauphin was hacked under
their plan of conspiracy only in order to abet and defame him so all the respondents should
be also liable under this section as it provides special provisions for the acts done through
electronic medium .
✔ Moreover Peter should also be liable under section 79 of IT ACT ,2000 which states that
exemption of intermediary if (b) the intermediary does not-

(i) initiate the transmission,

(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and

(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission( done by peter by
misinterpreting content of message)

✔ Hence ,it is humbly submitted before this apex court that by considering all the acts and
the evidences presented before this court all HEERA ,PETER ,DANIEL AND NEELIMA
should be liable u/s 120b ,306,500 of OPC (orient penal code)and section 66C AND 79 OF
IT ACT ,2000.

ISSUE :III

24
❖ WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD PROVIDE ANY DIRECTIONS REGARDING THE
SAME AS CYBER BULLYING HAS KNOW BECOME SILENT KILLER FOR THE
PEOPLE OF COUNTRY AS DEATH RATIO DUE BYLLING IS ON INCREASE?

✔ It is humbly submitted before this apex court that cyber bullying is now increasing day by
day people using social media as bullying medium by sharing offensive photos and defaming
texts and comments on various posts . This has became very crucial issue that people are
using social media and committing the cyber crimes without fear and restrictions . so in the
welfare of public court should provide some guidelines ,so that no one else would suffer with
such injustice like petitioner has and no one have to lose their near and dear ones due to
cyber bullying .
✔ As per the report of National Crime Prevention Council “ cyber bullying is when someone
repeatedly harasses ,mistreats, or make fun of another person online with cell phone or
any electronic device. Bullying is majorly said to be done when someone pretend that he or
she is someone else in order to trick someone online ,when someone spread lies and
rumors about other , when someone send mean messages and uploads the pictures
offensive in nature without the consent.

✔ Research has shown that cyber bullying is linked with suicidal approach specially youth wh
are bullied have greater risks for experiencing suicidal thoughts , according to WHO every
year 8,00,000 people died due to suicide and 7% of are the victims of cyber bullying .

✔ By considering all above data and statistical analysis court should help the citizens by
guiding and providing some directions to legislature to form some strict rules regarding the
same.

25
 Prayer

Therefore in the light of arguments advanced submitted , authorities cited and provisions of
law are connected with the facts mentioned , it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble
Supreme court that it may graciously be pleased to:

1) Declare that the appeal done by the petitioner maintainable and valid

2) The order upheld by the Hon’ble High court of Seola is erroneous and impugned and set
aside .

3) Declare that the respondents are liable u/s 120B , 306 ,500 of Orient penal code and u/s
66C and 79 of IT ACT ,2000.

4) The Hon’ble will provide directions related to Cyber bullying to decrease the death ratio
of suicide due to bullying .

AND /OR

26
 Pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice , equity and Good conscience

And for this , the Petitioner as in duty bound , shall humbly pray .

Council appearing on behalf of petitioner

27