Respondent - Calista

TEAM CODE - 03
SCHOOL OF LAW, NMIMS BANGALORE INTRA-MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2022
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.______________2022
PEOPLE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND ORS.------PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA-----------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1|Page
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------------03
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES---------------------------------------------------------------------------04
» CASE LAWS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------04
» CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--------------------------------------------------------05
» BOOKS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------05
» STATUTES-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------05
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION------------------------------------------------------------------06
STATEMENT OF FACTS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------07
ISSUES RAISED----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------09
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED-------------------------------------------------------------------------11
» ISSUE NO. 01:

WHETHER THE P.I.L. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?----------------------11
» ISSUE NO. 02:
WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?------------------------------------------------14
» ISSUE NO. 03:
WHETHER THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE MERCY
PETITION SHOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF THE APPELLANT’S
SENTENCE OR NOT?------------------------------------------------------------------------18
» ISSUE NO. 04:
WHETHER THE MERCY PETITION FILED BY MR. BAJPAI IS LEGALLY AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?------------------------------------------------21
PRAYER--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
2|Page
[LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Edn. Edition
Hon’ble Honorable
In Re In reference
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ors. Others
P.I.L. Public Interest Litigation
S. Section
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sd Signed
Suppl. Supplement
UOI Union of India
Vol. Volume
3|Page
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
» CASE LAWS
Macchi Singh v State of Punjab, (1983) SCC 0 211.
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) SCC 3 609
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, (1989) SCC CRI 248.
Jagmohan Singh v State of U. P., (2002) AICLR 4 983.
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC 6 498.
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, (1980) SCC CRI 580.
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2015) SCC OnLine PAT 5613.
Saibanna v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165.
Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277.
Jagmohan Singh v The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20.
Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 SCC 9 495.
Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 23106.
Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P., (1979) 3 SCR 646.
Bablu v State of Rajasthan (2006) 13 SCC 116: AIR 2007 SC 697: 2007 CrLJ 1160.
Dhandayutham v State, 1994 CrLJ 1587.
Election Commission of India Petitioner v. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr. S, 2017 SCC
OnLine DEL 7199.
Paramal Raman v. State of Kerala, 1992 CrLJ 176 Ker.
Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 344.
State v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors., (2014) SCC OnLine Del 7338.
Suresh and Anr. v. The State of U. P, (2000) SCC OnLine All 1200.
Jafar Ali v. State of U.P., (2004) SCC OnLine All 1803.
Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2003) SCC 199.
Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay, (2013) SCC 13 1.
Nirbhaya Gang-Rape, (2017) SCC OnLine SC 533.
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2013) SCC 6 195.
Mahendra Singh Chhabra v. State of N. C. T., (2004) AD DEL 8 679
4|Page
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
» CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Art. 32, Constitution of India, 1950.
Art. 21, The Constitution of India, 1950.

» BOOKS
Indian Penal Code – Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Code of Criminal Procedure – Ratanlal Dhirajla
Commentary on the Constitution of India – D. D. Basu (9th Edn. – Vol. 05)
» STATUTES
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 235 (2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
S. 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5|Page
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has inherent jurisdiction to try, intervene and dispose of
the present case by virtue of Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. The Councils of Respondents
have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hold the P. I. L. non-maintainable under Art.
32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 – which reads as follows:
Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950,
“(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 the 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) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.”1
1
6|Page
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
» Manoj Bajpai is a well know actor, and is considered a man of extremely high
reputation
» Mr. Bajpai was not in a happy marriage as his wife was infertile. Due to this reason,
their relations had soured and in spite of staying together, they were hardly on talking
terms with each other.
» One night in 1996, Mr. Bajpai, in a drunken rage, murdered his wife. Mr. Bajpai was
tried under both the trial court and the high court. Both the courts convicted him of
the offense punishable under S.302 of the IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of
rigorous imprisonment in 2001.
» Manoj Bajpai was sentenced to Taloja Jail in Navi Mumbai. His cellmate, Mr. Pankaj
Tripathi, became a close friend. Both became great friends, and Mr. Tripathi advised
Mr. Bajpai to marry his daughter by requesting parole.
» In 2007, Mr. Bajpai was released on parole and married Mr. Tripathi’s daughter. Mr.
Bajpai’s marriage was solemnized and later his wife delivered twin babies.
» After the birth of his kids in 2009, he was granted second parole. By that time Mr.
Bajpai had started suspecting his wife of infidelity even though he had no proof of her
being adulterous.
» In 2010, While quarreling with his wife he was consumed with blinding rage and
murdered his wife and his children. The neighbors caught him with a blood-stained
knife next to his dead wife and children.
» Notably, at that time he was suffering from mental illnesses and had been seeing a
therapist who advised him to see her regularly.
» Only the blood-stained knife was produced at the time of the hearing and no cross-
examination was done.
» The Sessions Court sentenced Mr. Bajpai to death under Ss.302 and 303 of the IPC in
2012.
» Mr. Bajpai apple was rejected by the Bombay high court in 2013. Later, in 2014 the SC
upheld the Bombay high court’s decision.
» Mr. Bajpai then fielded a Mercy Petition in 2014 to the President of India which is
pending till date
7|Page
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
» Notably, all this time he was not kept in death row cells so he strongly believed that his
sentence would be reduced.
» A Delhi-based NGO called “People against capital punishment” Filed a PIL in the
supreme courts claiming that the long delay of the mercy petition had violated the rights
of Mr. Bajpai under article 21 of the Indian constitution and hence the SC should
completely acquit Mr. Bajpai on all charges.
8|Page
[ISSUES RAISED]
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE NO. 01:

WHETHER THE P.I.L. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
» SUB-ISSUE:
WHETHER THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED BY THE

SUPREME COURT OR NOT?
ISSUE NO. 02:
WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY AND

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
ISSUE NO. 03:
WHETHER THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE MERCY PETITION

SHOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF THE APPELLANT’S SENTENCE OR NOT?
» SUB-ISSUE:
WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION IS LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

OR NOT?
ISSUE NO. 04:
WHETHER THE MERCY PETITION FILED BY MR. BAJPAI IS LEGALLY AND

9|Page
[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO. 01: WHETHER THE P.I.L. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present Public
Interest Litigation filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The petitioner,
Manoj Bajpai, is guilty of the offense of murdering in a heinous manner. Because of this the
petitioner’s case should be considered under the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ case and the death
penalty should be awarded to him should be upheld.
ISSUE NO. 02: WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY AND
It is humbly submitted that the trial is legally and constitutionally valid because the accused
has committed an unlawful offense (1) under S. 302 of IPC by murdering his second wife and
minor children and (2) under S. 303 of IPC, as it was the second time he committed the
offense of murder, that too when he was out on parole while he was still serving the
sentence of his first crime. Therefore, his sentence of the death penalty must be upheld by the
apex court once again.
ISSUE NO. 03: WHETHER THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE
MERCY PETITION SHOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF THE APPELLANT’S
SENTENCE OR NOT?
It is humbly contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Art. 21 of the
Constitution - of the Petitioner has not been violated by the Respondent due to the delay in the
disposal of the Mercy Petition and hence cannot lead to the reduction or the complete acquittal
of the Petitioner in this case.
ISSUE NO. 04: WHETHER THE MERCY PETITION FILED BY MR. BAJPAI IS
LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
It is most humbly contented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the mercy petition
filed by the petitioner is not legally and constitutionally valid. As the Petitioner did not follow
the procedure of filing review and curative petitions before the mercy petition has been filed.
And hence should be rejected.
10 | P a g e
[ADVANCED ARGUMENTS]
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO. 01: WHETHER THE P.I.L. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the present
PIL is not maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, against the
respondents. In the case of Macchi Singh v State of Punjab2, certain guidelines were
laid down by the Supreme Court to determine whether a case would qualify as ‘rarest
of the rare case’. These guidelines were:
(a) Manner of commission of murder: Mr. Bajpai murdered his wife and 2 innocent
children with a knife in a heinous manner.
(b) Motive of commission of murder: He committed those crimes over suspicion of his
wife’s fidelity, with no proof.
(c) Anti-Social or socially abhorrent nature of crime: Murdering his innocent wife and
two children who were under the age of 1 year could be considered of anti-social nature.
(d) Magnitude of the crime: He was already serving a 10-year prison sentence for
murdering his first wife and committed 3 more murders (two of them beings minors)
while out on parole.
(e) Personality of the victim of murder: He murdered his wife based on suspicion
without any proof. And also, his two kids who were 1 year old.
2. Also, the petitioner’s right mentioned under Art. 21 were not violated in any way as all
the trial procedures were followed during the trial and he was allowed parole twice.
First, in 2007 to marry his wife. Second, In 2009 at the time of the birth of his children.
As far as the delay in mercy petition goes, In the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi
Administration)3, it was held that the power possessed by the President of India had
the widest amplitude. Meaning that the President is under no bound to give his judgment
in a timely manner.
2
Macchi Singh v State of Punjab, (1983) SCC 0 211.
3
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) SCC 3 609
11 | P a g e
3. In Triveniben v. State of Gujarat4, the Supreme Court while laying down the judgement
mentioned that based only on the delay of the mercy petition, the death sentence cannot
be commuted to life imprisonment.
4. In the case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab5 the Supreme Court coined the doctrine
of ‘rarest of rare’ case which was further shed light in the case of Prajeet Kumar Singh
v. State of Bihar6, wherein the court ruled exactly on what would constitute a “rarest
of rare case.” The Court held that a death sentence would be awarded only, “when a
murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or
dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.”
5. In the case of Jagmohan Singh v State of U. P.7, which was later further explained in
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra8 the constitutional bench stated that
legislative policy noticeable from Section 235(2) read with Section 354(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is that it is only when the culpability assumes the proportion of
total depravity that “special reasons” within the meaning of Section 354(3) for the
imposition of the death sentence can be said to exist. Section 353(3) of the CRPC, 1973
states that - When the conviction is for an offense punishable with death or, in the
alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the
judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence
of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
6. In India, only the most gruesome crimes have been punished with death. In their rulings
over the years, the judges have always backed capital punishment. In Jagmohan Singh
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 11 a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously
upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. The court held that capital
punishment did not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 and that the death sentence is chosen
according to law. Bachan Singh vs. Punjab revisited the issue. As an alternative
punishment for murder, the death penalty is not unreasonable and does not violate
articles 14, 19, and 21. Since India’s independence, 755 people have been executed. 11
since 2000.
4
Triveniben v State of Gujrat, (1989) SCC CRI 248.
5
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, (1980) SCC CRI 580.
6
Prajeet Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2015) SCC OnLine PAT 5613.
7
Jagmohan Singh v State of U. P., (2002) AICLR 4 983.
8
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) SCC 6 498.
12 | P a g e
7. In the case of Mahabir Gope v State of Bihar9 12 It was observed that Section 303
would apply even in cases where a person undergoing sentence was convicted under
Section 302 Thus, with all the above arguments it can be concluded that the P.I.L. filed
by the Petitioner is not maintainable.
8. Thus, with all the above arguments it can be concluded that the P.I.L. filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable.
9
Mahabir Gope v. State of Bihar, (1963) AIR SC 118.
13 | P a g e
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
ISSUE NO. 02: WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY AND
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the trial is legally
and constitutionally valid on the grounds that the accused was previously charged with
Section 302 of IPC10 which mentions that whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death [or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine] and Section 303
of IPC11 which mentions whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life,
commits murder, shall be punished with death.
2. In the present scenario, it is held that the accused was sentenced to the death sentence
under Section 302 and Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code which was upheld by the
Bombay High Court and the Apex court both. Thus, the filing of P.I.L. was on the basis
of a violation of Art. 21 and hence, doesn’t actually change the fact that Section 302
and Section 303 still applies. Therefore, there is no question of complete acquittal.
3. In a very similar case of Saibanna v. State of Karnataka12. The facts of the case bear
out that Saibanna had killed his first wife as he suspected that she was unfaithful to him
and therefore murdered her. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He
re-married whilst he was out of prison parole. Later, when he was again released on
parole, he killed his second wife suspecting that she too was unfaithful to him and his
two children as well who were sleeping. He was charged under Section 303 IPC, which
prescribed the mandatory death sentence, even though the Section had already been
struck down by the Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab13. The High Court
proceeded to confirm the death sentence under Section 303 IPC. The Supreme Court in
appeal upheld the judgment. The Court held that Saibanna, already undergoing a life
sentence, could not be sentenced to life imprisonment again, and therefore the death
sentence was the only available punishment.
4. It can be concluded that the previous judgment, in this case, considered it to be of rarest
of the rare case according to the proposition for awarding the death penalty laid down
by the Constitution bench in Jagmohan Singh’s14 case in which it was held that
10
11
12
Saibanna v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 165.
13
Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277.
14
Jagmohan Singh v The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20.
14 | P a g e
[ADVANCE ARGUMENTS]
aggravating and mitigating factors are to be taken into consideration and a balance sheet
gives equal weightage to both before deciding the sentence of an accused.
5. It is to be observed that committing the rarest of the rare category murder and the fact
that someone is a habitual offender comes under the category of aggravating factors
which are discussed in the case of Machhi Singh v State of Punjab15, and the Supreme
Court guidelines for providing the death sentence are also provided in the landmark
case of Bacchan Singh v State of Punjab16 in which the facts were quite similar to the
present case. The circumstances required to be taken into consideration while applying
the doctrine of “rarest of the rare” crime were also mentioned in some other cases17.
Also, in Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P.18, it was held that the special reasons
necessary for imposing the death penalty must not only relate to the crime but to the
criminal too (Habitual Offender).
6. In the case of Bablu v State of Rajasthan19, it was held that the accused who killed his
wife and 4 young children belonged to the rarest of the rare case and was awarded the
death sentence. It is however pertinent to note that the offense committed by the accused
was a coldblooded murder and hence the case also doesn’t fall under Exception 1 of
Section 300 of IPC20 amounting to neither grave and sudden provocation, nor a
sustained provocation. In a similar case of Dhandayutham v. State21, it was held that
the accused had killed an innocent woman and an infant of a family merely based on
the suspicion of illicit intimacy between his wife and the father of the deceased infant
upon his suspicion which seemed to be more imaginary than real, therefore it was held
that the plea of sustained provocation was not tenable in this case.
7. It is also to be noted that the offense wasn’t committed in a sudden fight and the offense
wasn’t free of premeditation as it was clearly stated that the marital relations were
souring due to quarrels between them for a long period of time over assumed suspicion
15
Machhi Singh And Others v. State of Punjab, 1983 AIR SC 957.
16
Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 23106.
17
Ramnaresh v State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 1357; Brajendra Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012
SC 1552.
18
Rajendra Prasad v State of U.P., (1979) 3 SCR 646.
19
Bablu v State of Rajasthan (2006) 13 SCC 116: AIR 2007 SC 697: 2007 CrLJ 1160.
20
S. 300, Exception 1, Indian Penal Code, which mentions the nature of provocation before the commissioning
of a crime.
21
Dhandayutham v State, 1994 CrLJ 1587.
15 | P a g e
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]
of loyalty and fidelity. Therefore, he wouldn’t be granted a defense under Exception 4
of Section 300 of IPC22.
8. Additionally, it can also be contended that being a man of extremely high reputation in
society and a well-known actor in the Mumbai-based film industry, Bollywood, the
accused, Mr. Bajpai is known to be one of the highest-earning of the and could have
misused the provisions of his parole for being out of the custody for a very long period
even though his reason of being out (the birth of his children) was fulfilled way ago. It
can be said that being an eminent public figure he misused his parole which is not even
considered a right in India and each state has its parole rules making it prone to corrupt
activities. It is evident in India, that misuse is quite common among even locally
influential figures like in the case of Bibi Jagir Kaur23. Adding on to the point, in the
case of the Election Commission of India v Mukhtar Ansari24, Delhi High Court held
that custody parole cannot be used as a substitute for bail and cannot extend for longer
periods of time and for daily visits.
9. It can also be said that the accused wasn’t of unsound mind as he was still undergoing
psychiatric therapy which no one had consulted him to. Moreover, there weren’t any
conclusive results that found him to be of unsound mind, and according to Section 84
of IPC25 which states the essential elements for a person to be of unsound mind include
the absence of any motive. Whereas in this case, the accused, Manoj Bajpai clearly had
a reason for his act which was his suspicion of his wife for being disloyal to him. On
top of that it was provided that all necessary procedures of trial and investigation were
followed and according to Section 328 of CrPC, procedures cover the proper
examination of unsoundness of mind by medical experts and approval of the magistrate
if unsoundness of mind is contended or suspected. Therefore, if he was awarded death
sentence even after following the medical tests, it was quite clear that he wasn’t of
unsound mind. Also, the onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused.
22
S. 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, which talks about sudden fights taking place before the crime was
committed.
23
Bibi Jagir Kaur v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2017 CRICC 1 618; RCR CRIMINAL 1 390. Bibi Jagir
Kaur is a locally known figure being the President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and was
sentenced to prison for her role in the murder of her daughter after only four months in prison, she was granted
parole quite easily.
24
Election Commission of India Petitioner v. Mukhtar Ansari & Anr. S, 2017 SCC OnLine DEL 7199.
25
S. 84, Indian Penal Code, discusses the ambit under which the act of a person of unsound mind is unlawful.
16 | P a g e
[ADVANCE ARGUMENTS]
Hence, in Paramal Raman v State of Kerala 26, the accused was not able to discharge
the burden and, therefore convicted.
10. Furthermore, even producing circumstantial evidence found directly from a crime scene
directly can be substantial proof. As mentioned in Section 231 of CrPC27, the
prosecution should lay over before the court all material evidence available to it for
unfolding its case, but it will be unsound to lay down a general rule that every witness
must be examined. Hence, the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses if
he doesn’t consider them necessary. In the case of Jagdish v. State of M.P28, the
appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for having murdered his wife, four
minor daughters, and a minor son. The appellant was arrested on the spot and on
interrogation, a bloodstained pajama and a knife hidden in a quilt were seized. The
court thus observed that the case rested almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence
and then went on to examine the various circumstances. The court found that the
evidence that the dead bodies were lying in the room was sufficient enough to hold the
accused guilty of his crime. He was sentenced to death firstly by the Additional Sessions
Judge, and then on an appeal and reference to the High Court, the conviction and
sentence were maintained.
11. Hence, the trial is constitutionally and legally valid.
26
Paramal Raman v. State of Kerala, 1992 CrLJ 176 Ker.
27
S. 231, Code of Criminal Procedure, mentions about the evidence for prosecution
28
Jagdish v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 SCC 9 495.
17 | P a g e
ISSUE NO. 03: WHETHER THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE
MERCY PETITION SHOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF THE APPELLANT’S
SENTENCE OR NOT?
1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the delay in the
disposal of the Mercy Petition by the President of India does not violate Mr. Bajpai’s
Right to Life and Personal Liberty provided under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India
which states –
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.”29
2. The President and the Governor hold the executive power of pardoning mercy petitions
of the convicts under Art. 72 and Art. 161 of the Constitution.
Art. 72 states – “(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves,
respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of
any person convicted of an offense —
(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;
(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offense against any law
relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.” 30
Art. 161 states – “The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons,
reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the
sentence of any person convicted of any offense against any law relating to a matter to
which the executive power of the State extends.” 31
3. The delay in the disposal of the Mercy Petition by the President of India does not violate
Mr. Bajpai’s Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution and
hence cannot completely acquit Mr. Manoj Bajpai of the crime he committed.
4. Yakub Memon was found guilty in the 1993 serial bomb blast case in Yakub Memon
v. State of Maharashtra32. He was given the death penalty after being found guilty of
criminal conspiracy and aiding and abetting a terrorist attack on July 27, 2007. On July
30, 2015, eight years after the ruling and following the denial of his curative petition—
29
30
31
32
Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1
18 | P a g e
the final avenue of legal recourse open to any convicted person—he was executed at
the Nagpur Central Jail.
5. In the case of State v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors.33, Mohd. Afzal and his companions were
sentenced to death by a Delhi Court in the year 2002 for attacking the Parliament which
caused the death of 9 people. This Death Sentence was upheld by the Delhi High Court
in the year 2003. He then appealed the Supreme Court which was rejected in the year
2005. He then filed a mercy petition which was rejected in the year 2013 by the
President.
6. In the case of Suresh and Anr. v. The State of U. P.34, Suresh Ji, and Ram Ji were
sentenced to death by the Allahabad High Court in the year 2000 for murdering five of
their relatives over a property dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal later.
In the year 2001, they filed a mercy petition which was rejected after 12 years by the
President of India.
7. In the case of Jafar Ali v. State of U.P.35, Jafar Ali was given a death sentence by the
Sessions Court in the year 2002 for killing his wife and five of his daughters. The Death
Sentence was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in the year 2004. His appeal was
dismissed by the Supreme Court as well in the same year. He then filed a mercy petition
which was rejected in the year 2013.
8. In the case of Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka36, Praveen Kumar was one of the
seven convicts in Karnataka who had applied for clemency which was rejected. He
killed four of his relatives with the intention of robbing their ornaments. He committed
the murders in the year 1994 for which a death sentence announced by the lower court
was later confirmed by the state High Court and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s
decision had come in the year 2003, but the execution was kept pending as Pravin filed
a clemency petition thereafter. He filed the mercy petition in the year 2003 and it was
rejected by the President in the year 2013.
9. Looking at and comparing all the above cases with the case of Manoj Bajpai it can be
said that delay in the disposal of the mercy petition does not violate Art. 21 of the
convict. Also, in the case of Triveniben v. State of Gujrat37, it was concluded that –
33
State v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors., (2014) SCC OnLine Del 7338.
34
Suresh and Anr. v. The State of U. P, (2000) SCC OnLine All 1200.
35
Jafar Ali v. State of U.P., (2004) SCC OnLine All 1803.
36
Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2003) SCC 199.
37
Triveniben v. State of Gujrat, (1983) 1 SCC 678.
19 | P a g e
[ADVANCE ARGUMENTS]
‘No fixed period of delay could be held to make the sentence of death inexecutable.’
which when compared to the case of Mr. Bajpai one can say that the 8 years of delay in
the disposal of the mercy petition does not make his death sentence inexecutable.
10. Considering all the above-mentioned arguments it can be contended that the delay in
the disposal of the Mercy Petition by the President of India does not violate Mr. Bajpai’s
and hence cannot lead to complete acquittal nor can it lead to a reduction in the death
sentence.
SUB-ISSUE: WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AND

LEGALLY VALID OR NOT?
1. The Constitution's Art. 14 and Art. 21 provide a solid foundation for natural justice in
India. the principles of natural justice can be read into Art. 21 with the introduction of
the concepts of substantive and procedural due process. The most important words in
the Art. 21 are ‘Procedure established by law.’ Thus, it can be said that Natural Justice
and Procedural Law are related. Through the correct application of procedural law can
natural justice be achieved.
2. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India38, the Supreme Court observed that the procedure
prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘right,
just and fair’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’. In the case of Mr. Bajpai, all
the procedures were done in a fair and just manner.
3. In the case of Mahender Singh Chhabra v. State of N.C.T.39 Of Delhi & Ors., the
learned judge R. C. Chopra stated - With a view to nail the real culprits and save
victimization of innocents, radical improvements are required in the procedures so that
the faith of the general public in the criminal justice system is not eroded.
4. In the case of Saptawna v. The State of Assam, it was stated that – “It is not necessary
that the petitioner should be produced on each occasion before the Magistrate for
remand.”
5. Hence, it can be said that the investigation is legally and constitutionally valid.
38
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) SCC 1 248.
39
Mahendra Singh Chhabra v. State of N. C. T., (2004) AD DEL 8 679.
20 | P a g e
ISSUE NO. 04: WHETHER THE MERCY PETITION FILED BY MR. BAJPAI IS
LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the mercy
petition filed by Mr. Bajpai is legally and constitutionally invalid.
2. As per law, if a convict is awarded a death sentence, he has three options – review
petition and curative petition before the Supreme Court, and finally mercy petition
before the President.
Review Petition: Art. 137 enables the Supreme Court to review its own judgments,
subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament. This power is exercisable
under rules made by the court under Art. 145. The review will lie in the Supreme Court
on the following grounds:
a) discovery of new important matters of evidence;
b) mistake or error on the face of the record; and
c) any other sufficient reason.
Art. 137 states - Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules
made under Art. 145, the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it40.
Curative petition: Curative Petition is also supported by Article 137 of the Indian
Constitution. A curative petition is needed to provide a final recourse for correcting any
errors in judgment where technical difficulties or other apprehensions over reopening a
case prevented from reviewing judgments. The Curative Petition is the last chance
available for protection from the compensation of injustice in the court after the review
petition is dismissed or has been exhausted. It is a concept that evolved by the Supreme
Court of India in the matter of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr41.
A Mercy Petition is the last resort of a person when all the remedies available to him/her
under the prevailing laws and the Constitution are exhausted.
3. Yakub Memon was found guilty of criminal conspiracy, for carrying out terrorist
activities and murder, aiding, and abetting terrorist attacks. He was also held liable for
illegal possession and transport of arms and ammunition with a view of endangering
40
41
Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr, (1999) SCC 2 105.
21 | P a g e
[ADVANCE ARGUMENTS]
his life. And for all these crimes he was punished with severe imprisonment for 14 years
and 10 years, followed by a death sentence. In the case of Yakub Memon v. State of
Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay42, the original appeal, a review petition, the
second review petition, a curative petition, a written petition challenging the warrant of
execution of the death sentence and proceedings to reset this written petition had
already taken place in six phases in the proceeding. According to this case, Yakub
Memon can be considered prima facie guilty as he was found in Karachi with his
conversation tape and also funded the terrorist attacks that are evidence against him.
Yakub Memon was hanged as his petition was rejected.
4. One of the convicts in the Nirbhaya Gang-Rape43 and murder case, Pawan Gupta, has
moved the Supreme Court with a curative petition against the dismissal of his review
plea rejecting his juvenile claim. The apex court had on January 31 dismissed his review
plea against the rejection of his appeal on January 20. The trial court had on March 5
issued fresh black warrants for the execution of all four convicts in the case Mukesh
Kumar Singh (32), Pawan (25), Vinay (26,) and Akshay (31) in Tihar Jail at 5.30 am
on March 20. The convicts have exhausted their legal remedies and constitutional
remedies with the filing of their mercy petitions, which have been rejected by the
President.
5. Looking at the previous landmark cases, petitioners followed the procedure of filing
review and curative petitions before the mercy petition. Hence Mr. Bajpai’s petition
should be held invalid.
6. A mercy petition is the last resort available to a convict having a death sentence after
all legal and judicial remedies like review and curative petitions are exhausted. A mercy
petition may be filed before the President of India under Article 72 or the Governor of
the state under Article 161.
7. It was reiterated in Kehar Singh v Union of India44 that the grant of pardon by the
President is an act of grace and, therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The
pardoning power is based on the consideration of public good and is to be exercised on
the grounds of public welfare, which is the legitimate objective of all punishments. The
42
Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay, (2013) SCC 13 1.
43
Nirbhaya Gang-Rape, (2017) SCC OnLine SC 533.
44
Kehar Singh v Union of India, (1988) AIR 1883, 1988 SCR.
22 | P a g e
[ADVANCE ARGUMENTS]
power vested in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 of
the Constitution is a Constitutional duty. As a result, it is neither a matter of grace nor
a matter of privilege but is an important constitutional responsibility reposed by the
people in the highest authority.
8. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi45 case in which it had held that
delay in deciding mercy plea cannot be a ground for commutation of the death sentence.
The Supreme Court in this case concluded that those sentenced to death for terrorist
offenses could not invoke the argument for inordinate delay in disposing of mercy
petitions due to the nature of the crimes.
9. Looking at the above cases, hence Mr. Bajpai’s Mercy petition should be rejected by
the President.
45
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2013) SCC 6 195.
23 | P a g e
[PRAYER]
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The P.I.L. filed by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is not
maintainable and Capital Punishment should not be abolished.
2. The trial of the Petitioner is legally and constitutionally valid.
3. The delay in the disposal of the mercy petition has not violated Art. 21 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The mercy petition filed by Mr. Bajpai is legally and constitutionally invalid.
Also, please pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the RESPONDENT in the
light of equity, justice, and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the RESPONDENT shall duty bound forever, pray.
Place: Delhi, India. Sd /-
Dated: 16th November, 2022 Counsel for Petitioner
24 | P a g e

Respondent - Calista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent - Calista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE - 03

SCHOOL OF LAW, NMIMS BANGALORE INTRA-MOOT COURT

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION NO.______________2022

PEOPLE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND ORS.------PETITIONER

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

» ISSUE NO. 01:

AIR All India Reporter

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

IPC Indian Penal Code

P.I.L. Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

Art. 161, The Constitution of India, 1950.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950,

ISSUE NO. 01:

WHETHER THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED BY THE

ISSUE NO. 02:

WHETHER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY AND

ISSUE NO. 03:

WHETHER THE INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE MERCY PETITION

WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION IS LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

ISSUE NO. 04:

WHETHER THE MERCY PETITION FILED BY MR. BAJPAI IS LEGALLY AND

SUB-ISSUE: WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AND

Place: Delhi, India. Sd /-

Dated: 16th November, 2022 Counsel for Petitioner

You might also like