Memorandum On Behalf of The Respondents (SNBP)

TEAM CODE-
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHERALA

(Under Section 374(2) of CrPC,1973)
IN THE MATTER OF
Ms. Nisha, Mr. Varun, and Mr. Madhavan

(Appellants)
v.
State of Cherela
(Respondents)
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................6
ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................10
I- THAT THE CHARGE SHEET, POLICE REPORTS, AND EVIDENCE WERE NOT
MANIPULATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS FOR IMPOSING SERIOUS CRIMINAL
CHARGES ON DEVI’S FAMILY.......................................................................................11
1.1 The police officers have followed the procedure established by the law to arrest
the accused, file a charge sheet, and submit the police report to the nearby magistrate.. .11
1.2 The police found sufficient evidence that could prove the involvement of Devi’s
family in the crime.............................................................................................................14
1.3 The police have interrogated and investigated all other potential suspects of the
crime. 16
II- THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS MADE BY

DEVI’S FAMILY.................................................................................................................18
2.1 The extra-judicial confession made by Devi’s family to the local inhabitants about
Varun should be admissible for conviction.......................................................................18
III- THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN NOT BE ORDERED IN THIS CASE, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE BY THE HIGH COURT............................................................22
3.1 The investigation done by the police is sufficient to administer justice in the
present case........................................................................................................................22
3.2 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not use its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr. P.C., to order a reinvestigation or any further investigation by the CBI....23

2
IV- THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY GROUND FOR QUASHING THE
TRIAL...................................................................................................................................26
4.1 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not quash the trial court’s decision......26
4.2 The trial court has rightfully convicted Varun u/s 376 and 372 IPC, u/s 5 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, and u/s 5 (n) and S-6 of the POCSO Act and to
Nisha and Madhavan u/s 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956.............28
PRAYER...................................................................................................................................30

3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad High Court
Cal Calcutta High Court
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr. P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del Delhi High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
Art. Article
Sec. Section
Mad. Madras High Court
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna High Court
Raj Rajasthan High Court
Ori Orissa High Court
Guj Gujarat High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
v. Versus
CONST Constitution
BomCR Bombay Cases Reporter
MANU Manupatra

4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey, AIR 1984 SC 452.............................................................................13

Arun Marik v. the State of Bihar, 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 372 JT 1994 (2) 627..........................12
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016............................................................15
Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37....................................................................20
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350...........................................................15
Baskaran v. State of TN, (2014) 5 SCC 765 (para 17).............................................................19
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0218/2002.........................................................29
Bhagwant Singh, 1985 Cr LJ 1521 (SC)..................................................................................11
Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/2420/2018..............................29
Brahma v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595........................................................................19
Collector Of Central Excise At ... v. Sushil Kumar, 1983 (14) ELT 2226 Del........................16
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. UOI, AIR 1999 SC 2979........................................24
Devendra Nath v. the State of Bihar, MANU/SCOR/100845/2022.........................................23
Ganpat v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 6 (Del)..........................................................................................15
George Kutty v. State of Kerala, 1992 Cr LJ 1663 (Ker).........................................................14
Gurucharan Singh v. Suresh Kumar and Others., MANU/DE/0025/1987...............................11
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.................................12
Hanif Ur Rahman v. The State of Bihar, MANU/BH/1110/2021............................................14
Himanshu Kumar v. the State of Chattishgarh, MANU/SC/0891/2022...................................24
Kadamanian @ Manikandan v. State, AIR 2016 SC 4266, paras 12 and 15............................18
Kadek Dwi Ani Rashmini v. K. Natarajan, MANU/TN/0114/2019.........................................28
Kali Jeeban Bhattacharjya v Emperor, (1936) 63 Cal 1053.....................................................16
KR Prabhu v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Mad 369............................................................................13
Lakshman Jena v. Sudhakar Paltasingh, AIR 1969 Ori 149.....................................................13
Lallan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 229.........................................................11
Liyakat v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 1537.................................................................14
Lokeman Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2001 Cr LJ 2196.......................................................18
Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.................................................28
Manjunath Chennabasappa Madalli v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2080......................15
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1869....................27
Narayan Singh v. State of MP, AIR 1985 SC 1678..................................................................17

5
Narayan v Executive Officer, C.P Board, AIR 1965 Ker 73....................................................23

Nishi Kant Jha v. the State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422...........................................................23
Pakala Narain Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47................................................................23
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354..............................................................18
Palvinder Kaur v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354........................................................23
R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu, AIR 2000 SC 1731...............................................................................13
Ranchhodhdalal v. the State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1248.....................................11
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT), MANU/SC/0856/2022.....................................29
Re Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, AIR 2007 SC
2809.......................................................................................................................................19
Romila Thappar v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4683............................................................................24
Sahadevan v. State of TN, (2012) 6 SCC 403..........................................................................19
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2326............................11
Sannaia Subba Rao and Ors. vs. State of A.P., MANU/SC/3313/2008...................................29
Sarojini v. State of MP, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 632.....................................................................14
Satbir Singh v. the State of Haryana, AIR 2021 SC 2627........................................................14
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & ... v. Sahngoo Ram Arya And anr, AIR 2002 SC 2225............24
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622........................15
Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714.....................................................................................18
SN Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari, AIR 1970 SC 786............................................................12
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604.........................................................................26
State of Karnataka v. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489............................................................24
State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691......................................20
State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144.................................................................22
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh, (2001) 3 SCC 147................................................................12
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naim AIR 1964 SC 703.......................................................28
State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
(2010) 3 SCC 571..................................................................................................................25
Swamy Ram v. the State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) WLN 33.......................................................12
Teeja Devi v. the State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221........................................................27
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644, para 19.............................................18
Vinod Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others APPLICATION u/s 482 no. - 12352 of
2004.......................................................................................................................................24
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque AIR 2005 SC 9........................27

6
Statutes
Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 157............................................................................................................11

Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 41..............................................................................................................11
Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 482............................................................................................................22
I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 372................................................................................................................26
I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 376................................................................................................................26
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956, Sec. 4..................................................14
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956, Sec. 5..................................................26
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, Sec. 4............................................................26
POCSO ACT, 2012, Sec. 5.......................................................................................................26
POCSO ACT, 2012, Sec. 6.......................................................................................................26
Other Authorities
TOMLIN'S LAW DICTIONARY, Vol 2, p 1811....................................................................14

7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section
374(2)1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
1
374. Appeals from convictions.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held
by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years 2 has been passed against him
or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background
Nisha and Madhavan are married couples residing in Idukku village in the state of Cherela.
Madhavan is a poor farmer who depends on his daily wages for his livelihood. They remained
childless for the first five years of their marriage. When they approached a gynecologist, they
came to know that Nisha was infertile. They suggested she move forward with Assisted
Reproductive Technology such as IVF treatment. But the family was very poor, as they had
difficulty even earning their daily bread. While Nisha was in deep distress for being childless,
she met a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl, Prabha, who was willing to abort the fetus but her
health conditions were of such a nature that abortion might have endangered her life. Nisha
took Prabha to her mother’s village, where she took all the care that Prabha needed. After a
few months, Prabha delivered a healthy girl child who was named “Devi”. As Prabha needed
to focus on her career and studies, she handed over the unwanted child to Nisha. Thus, Nisha
became the de-facto guardian of Devi.
The daily routine of the family
Devi was in the ninth grade. She used to go to the Government School Idukku. Madhavan and
Nisha used to leave home by 8 am for their job and returned at 6 pm evening. Devi used to
return from school by 4 pm. After school hours, she used to attend tuition for Mathematics in
her neighboring house from 4 pm to 5 pm. The tuition was taken by her neighbor “Vivek Sir”
aged 26, a postgraduate in Mathematics. He was staying with his mother and brother aged
seventeen years. As the girl was bright in her studies, he came forward to take tuition at a low
fee.
Circumstances leading to the death
On 9th August 2021, while Nisha was busy in the kitchen early morning, Devi was ill and
reluctant to go to school. When Nisha touched Devi’s body, she found that Devi had a high
fever. Nisha decided not to go to her work. She advised Devi to rest properly and quickly
went to the kitchen to prepare a hot rice soup for the girl. When Nisha returned to the
bedroom with the soup, she found Devi unconscious and white foam was coming from her
mouth. There were jerking movements of arms and legs. Thinking these symptoms to be fits
or seizures, she was immediately taken to the hospital in case of a medical emergency. On
reaching the hospital, the doctors confirmed that Devi was having some serious issues to
worry and she was taken immediately to ICU for further medical investigation. It was found
9
that there was a deep wound on the back side of her head which was not noticed due to her
thick hair. This deep wound on her head has caused internal bleeding in her brain and the
wound is of such a nature that it can cause immediate death. Devi passed away after two days
of suffering. The post-mortem report of Devi revealed that the wound in her back head was
severe and was the sole reason for her death. At the same time, she was brutally raped by
more than one person and there was internal bleeding in her reproductive organs.
Police investigation
When the investigation commenced, the police authorities reached an inference that the girl
would not have been injured severely without the knowledge of her parents- Nisha and
Madhavan. Local inhabitants informed that Nisha’s sister’s son, Varun, used to financially
help Devi’s parents and these facts created suspicion in the family. The Police authorities
reached an inference that Varun had sexually abused the deceased minor girl with the
knowledge of her de facto guardians and she was forced into prostitution to meet the financial
needs of the poor family. Nisha, Madhavan, and Varun were arrested by the Police and the
charge sheet was submitted to a nearby magistrate imposing charges of murder, rape, and
forced prostitution on them. They confessed to the police regarding their connection to the
crime. However, the family has claimed that they were physically and mentally tortured by
the police authorities. At the same time, Devi’s family raises allegations against the previous
residents of their nearby house. A family with a mother aged fifty and two sons aged 26 and
17 were staying opposite Devi’s home on rent at the time of the commission of the offense.
Devi was going for Math tuition in their home. After six months after the date of occurrence
of this crime, they shifted to another house on rent almost 10 KM away from Devi’s home.
But the police authorities had not enquired about their involvement in the commission of the
offense.
The case before the High Court
The trial court convicted the accused- Nisha, Madhavan, and Varun on charges of rape, and
forced prostitution based on their confession to the police during the investigation. The
accused have filed an appeal before the high court against the decision of the lower court.

10
ISSUES RAISED
-I-
Whether the charge sheet and police report were manipulated by police officers to imposing
serious criminal charges on Devi’s family?
-II-
Whether sole conviction can be based on confessions made by Devi’s family?
-III-
Whether re-investigation can order in the interest of justice by the Hon’ble High Court in this
case?
-IV-
Whether sufficient grounds exist for quashing the trial ??

11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I- That the charge sheet, police reports, and evidence, all were NOT
manipulated by Police Officers for imposing serious criminal charges on the
accused family.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the charge sheet, police reports, and
evidence, all were not manipulated by Police officers for imposing serious criminal
charges on the accused family. The police have collected sufficient evidences and have
conclusively drawn the chain of circumstances that led to the crime. The police have
thorough examined all possible suspects an then came to the conclusion that such a grave
injury could not have been caused to Devi without the knowledge of the people with
whom she used to live with, i.e., her de facto guardians.
II- That conviction can be based on confessions made by Devi’s family.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that conviction of the family can be made
on the confession made by the family. Since there are no direct pieces of evidence, the
circumstantial chain of evidence has to be relied upon. The family made an extra-judicial
confession to the neighbours that Varun used to help the family financially. The
neighbours used to observe that Varun frequently visited the house and found it very
strange.
III- That re-investigation should not be ordered in by the Hon’ble High Court in
this case.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that a re-investigation should not be
ordered by the hon’ble court in the present case as the police have conducted proper
investigation and a circumstantial chain of evidence have been found by the police. Re-
investigation by the CBI would only result in wastage of time and delay in justice.
IV- That there does not exist sufficient grounds for quashing the trial.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there does not exist sufficient grounds
for quashing the trial. The trial court has thoroughly analysed the facts and circumstances
of the case. It has examined and cross-examined the witnesses and then have convicted the
accused.

12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I- THAT THE CHARGE SHEET, POLICE REPORTS, AND EVIDENCE

WERE NOT MANIPULATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS FOR
IMPOSING SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES ON DEVI’S FAMILY.
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the police officers have followed
the procedure established by law. They arrested the accused on a strong suspicion and
recorded the statements and confession of the accused. They submitted the report to
the magistrate only after a proper investigation. There is no probability that the charge
sheet or reports have been manipulated by the police.
2. It is humbly submitted that the police conducted a proper investigation and evidence
was found that proved the connection of Devi’s family to the crime. Reasonable
grounds existed for police to arrest the accused, file the charge sheet, and submit the
police report to the magistrate.2
3. It is humbly submitted before the police have interrogated and investigated all other
possible suspects of the crime. After a thorough investigation, the police conclusively
inferred the involvement of Devi’s family in the crime.
1.1 The police officers have followed the procedure established by the law to arrest
the accused, file a charge sheet, and submit the police report to the nearby
magistrate.
4. It is humbly submitted that Section 157 3 of the Cr. P.C. establishes the procedure for
police investigation and evidence collection.4 A cognizable case is investigated when a
police officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of a
2
Gurucharan Singh v. Suresh Kumar and Others., MANU/DE/0025/1987.
3
Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 157.
4
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2326.
13
cognizable offense based on an FIR or other information received. 5 It is necessary to

notify the Magistrate of the FIR as soon as possible. 6 The officer shall then proceed to
the scene in person or delegate one of his subordinate officers to investigate the facts
and circumstances, and if necessary, measures for the discovery and arrest of the
person shall be taken. In the present case, the post-mortem report of Devi revealed that
she had been brutally raped by more than one man.7 The police immediately took suo
moto cognizance of the matter and arrested the prime suspects, the de facto guardians
of Devi.8 It is rightly inferred by the police that the girl was in constant custody of her
de-facto guardians and could not have been injured to such an extent without their
knowledge.
5. The police could arrest a person under Section 419 of the Cr. P.C., for a cognizable
offense, if a reasonable complaint has been made, credible information has been
received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that the person has committed a cognizable
offense. In the present case, a reasonable suspicion exists regarding the involvement of
Devi’s family in the crime.
6. When the local inhabitants were interrogated, they confirmed that Nisha’s sister’s son,
Varun frequently used to visit Devi’s home. The inference drawn by the police turned
to strong affirmation when they came to know that Varun financially aided Devi’s
family. The girl was forced into prostitution to aid the financial needs of the poor
family. The family veiled their wrongful acts by sending the girl to school and the
math tuition. The police report has not been manipulated, and it has reached the
magistrate duly in time.
In the case of Arun Marik v. the State of Bihar,10 the Supreme court held that the
process of sending the report to the magistrate is an inseparable part of the procedure,
and it must be sent as soon as possible to avoid undue delay 11 and to ensure the
accuracy of the report.12 The report must be sent to the magistrate for two reasons:
first, to prevent further improvisation in the prosecution's side of the story, and second,
5
Lallan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 229.
6
Bhagwant Singh, 1985 Cr LJ 1521 (SC).
7
Moot proposition, ¶ 5.
8
Ranchhodhdalal v. the State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1248.
9
Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 41.
10
Arun Marik v. the State of Bihar, 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 372 JT 1994 (2) 627.
11
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh, (2001) 3 SCC 147.
12
Swamy Ram v. the State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) WLN 33.
14
to allow the magistrate to monitor the progress and processing of the investigation.13 In
the present case, on the morning of 9th August, Nisha saw that white foam was coming
out of her mouth of Devi. If Devi had such a grave wound that ultimately caused her
death, as testified by the doctors in the post-mortem report, then must have been some
traces of blood or any sign that Nisha would have gotten before taking her to the
hospital. It is evident that some pieces of evidence have been erased by Nisha.
7. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi,14 the Supreme Court laid down
certain essential elements for the process of investigation: the police require to go to
the location of the crime, then it is required to investigate and determine the facts, and
circumstances of the case, steps should be taken to apprehend the suspected offender,
all the evidence against him/her should be put together, then it is required to form an
opinion to determine whether the materials related to the case go against or in favor of
the offender.15 In the present case, all the prerequisite conditions of a fair investigation
were followed.
8. The Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court's order in R. Sarala v. T.S.
Velu,16 which ordered the investigating officer to replace the closure report with an
amended charge sheet, on the grounds of interfering with the investigating officer's
exclusive jurisdiction. It was further stated that even if the Court cannot interfere with
the closure report's jurisdiction, the opinion of the closure report is not binding on
them. After reading the closure report and the facts of the case, the Magistrate must
form an opinion. The Magistrate then decides whether to accept or reject the closure
report. In the present case, the police have conducted a proper investigation and
submitted the closure report to the magistrate. 17 The magistrate of the trial court
decided to accept the closure report and convict the accused.18
9. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the police had
conducted a thorough investigation. They have taken all the facts and circumstances
into consideration, formed a strong inference, arrested the accused, recorded their
13
SN Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari, AIR 1970 SC 786.
14
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
15
KR Prabhu v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Mad 369.
16
R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu, AIR 2000 SC 1731.
17
Moot Proposition, ¶ 6.
18
Lakshman Jena v. Sudhakar Paltasingh, AIR 1969 Ori 149.
15
statements, and, then, filed a charge sheet, and submitted the closure police report to
the magistrate.
1.2 The police found sufficient evidence that could prove the involvement of Devi’s
family in the crime.
10. It is humbly submitted that the police have duly interrogated the local inhabitants
residing near Devi’s house. It was only after the statements of the people who knew
the family well, that the police came to know about the involvement of Varun and
could form a strong inference. 19 There are various cases wherein inferences are drawn
as all the time medical proof is not available. 20 For instance, a Blood or urine test is
not a must for proving the charge of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a question of fact
and smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils, and incoherent speech would
all be relevant considerations.21
11. In Sarojini v State of MP,22 the bride was burned to death. The court inferred that since
no one else was at the matrimonial home of the bride, and that the husband and
mother-in-law were present, the deceased must have been murdered by the mother-in-
law and the husband.23 In the present case also, a logical inference could be drawn that
the girl could not have been severely injured without the knowledge of the de-facto
guardians.
12. As per Section 424 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, “it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the
earnings of prostitution of another person within the meanings of Sub-section (1).” In
the present case, the trial court has convicted the accused of forced prostitution u/s 5
of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that Varun used to financially help the family. The
neighbors too found Varun’s frequent visits very strange. Therefore, police have
drawn the rightful inference that Varun used to pay Nisha and Madhavan in return for
Devi.
19
Moot Proposition, ¶ 6.
20
Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey, AIR 1984 SC 452.
21
George Kutty v. State of Kerala, 1992 Cr LJ 1663 (Ker).
22
Sarojini v. State of MP, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 632.
23
Satbir Singh v. the State of Haryana, AIR 2021 SC 2627.
24
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956, Sec. 4.
16
13. In the recent case of Hanif Ur Rahman v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,25 the de facto
guardians of the minor child sold her to a brothel of their relatives. In the present case
also, it could be seen that Varun paid money to de facto guardians of Devi, and as
testified by the neighbours, he used to pay strangely frequent visits to the house. It is
highly impractical that Devi was so grievously injured and the people who used to live
with her didn’t know about the injury unless it was told by the doctors.
14. Evidence is "the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the
existence of a fact. It consists of proof by the testimony of witnesses, on oath, or by
writing or records.26 In the present case, logical inferences have been drawn as
evidence from the testimony of the local inhabitant residing near Devi’s home.27
15. In reference to cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on
circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in a line of decisions has consistently held
that such evidence must satisfy certain tests.28
Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must
be cogently and firmly established.29 In the present case, the facts directly point the
finger of direct conviction only to the de-facto guardians and the uncle of Devi. Such
harm would not have been caused to Devi without the knowledge of her guardians. If
the family suggests that they were very emotionally attached to the girl then they must
have got some idea that the girl was in such grave pain. Varun often used to pay visits
to Devi’s house. He aided the family with their financial needs too. The circumstances
of the case directly point a finger of guilt toward Devi’s family.
Secondly, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused.30 In the present case, there are no other suspects. Devi
used to go to her school and the maths tuition. If the math teacher was involved in the
crime, as the family alleges, then Devi would have complained about it to her de-facto
guardians. The family only alleged the involvement of the maths tutor when they were
arrested by the police. This shows that the family wanted to shift the blame to the
family of the maths tutor.
25
Hanif Ur Rahman v. The State of Bihar, MANU/BH/1110/2021.
26
TOMLIN'S LAW DICTIONARY, Vol 2, p 1811.
27
Liyakat v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 1537.
28
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.
29
Bakshish Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SC 2016.
30
Ganpat v. State, 1987 Cr LJ 6 (Del).
17
Thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else. 31 In the present case, the crime was not
possible to be committed by anyone else but Devi’s family.
Fourth, the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete
and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused
but should be inconsistent with his innocence.32
16. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that though no direct
evidence exists with regard to the involvement of Devi’s family in the crime, there
exists strong circumstantial evidence that proves the direct involvement of Devi’s
family in the crime.
1.3 The police have interrogated and investigated all other potential suspects of the
crime.
17. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the police conducted a thorough
investigation of all other suspects of the crime. The accused is wrongfully alleging the
family of the math tutor for the crime. The police have duly questioned the local
inhabitant residing near Devi’s house who told them that Nisha’s sister’s son named
Varun used to help the family financially. He also used to visit the house very often,
which made the neighbors very suspicious. It is very obvious that Devi could not have
been raped so brutally and injured so deeply without the knowledge of the de-facto
guardians. There is a strong connection between Varun’s visiting the house frequently,
and Devi being raped in the knowledge of the de-facto guardians.
18. In the present case, the neighbours have given oral evidence that Varun used to aid the
family financially. The doctrine of Res-gestae could be applied in the present case. It
has been stated in Kali Jeeban Bhattacharjya v. Emperor,33 that the testimony of res
gestae is allowable when it goes to the root of the matter concerning the commission
31
Manjunath Chennabasappa Madalli v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2080.
32
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350.
33
Kali Jeeban Bhattacharjya v Emperor, (1936) 63 Cal 1053.
18
of a crime. Consequently, a verbal statement to a police officer during the time of

recovery of articles upon the information of an accused in custody is admissible in
evidence.
19. In the case of Collector of Central Excise At ... v. Sushil Kumar,34 the court stated that
section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act only includes the word "direct" and does not
include hearsay. Any evidence given must be direct, and hearsay evidence does not
qualify as oral evidence because it is not direct. However, as an exception to the rule
of hearsay, the doctrine of Res-gestae has been observed, which explained that any
person who has experienced any series of relevant facts, his testimony after the
incident, even if he has not seen the crime being committed, will be accepted.
20. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the statement of the
neighbours could be considered as a piece of oral evidence as it forms a significant
joint to the chain of circumstantial evidence that point directly to the guilt of the
accused. Hence, the charge sheet, police reports, and evidence were not manipulated
by the police for imposing such charges on the family.
34
Collector Of Central Excise At ... v. Sushil Kumar, 1983 (14) ELT 2226 Del.
19
II- THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS MADE

BY DEVI’S FAMILY.
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the extra-judicial confession
made by Devi’s family to the local inhabitants about Varun’s financial help may
prove to be a strong piece of evidence. The court should not just presume that the
confession is a weak type of evidence.35
2.1 The extra-judicial confession made by Devi’s family to the local inhabitants
about Varun should be admissible for conviction.
2. It is humbly submitted that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

However, in certain cases, where these confessions match the chain of circumstances,
they are considered valid and strong pieces of evidence. In the present case, the extra-
judicial confession made by Devi’s family to local inhabitant neighbors may prove to
be very strong evidence and may be the sole reason for the conviction of the
accused.36 The family had already informed close information to the neighbors that
Varun was Nisha’s sister’s son, who aided the family financially. The neighbors
always doubted frequent visits of Varun.
3. The Supreme Court in Kadamanian @ Manikandan v. State,37 relied on the extra-

judicial confession. The accused was suspected of committing the rape and murder of
the victim only after the Investigating Officer found it was affirmed by a witness, that
he was seen close to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he made an extra-judicial
confession to the Village Administrative Officer who was an unrelated person both to
the complainant and the accused. The non-recording of the extra-judicial confession
over a long period was held to be of no consequence. Further, the Village
Administrative Officer was not inimical to the accused. The extra-judicial confession
was relied on.
35
Narayan Singh v. State of MP, AIR 1985 SC 1678.
36
Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714.
37
Kadamanian @ Manikandan v. State, AIR 2016 SC 4266, paras 12 and 15.
20
4. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not in itself a confession. 38 Extra-

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the courts are to view it with
greater care and caution. For an extra-judicial confession to form the basis of a
conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent
improbabilities.39 In the present case, the confession of the accused to the local
inhabitants about the financial aid received by Varun forms a significant portion of
the circumstances of the events that led to the crime. The confession made by the
accused is not mere acceptance of the crime.40
5. The principles governing the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession capable of

forming the basis of conviction of an accused have been summed up by Supreme
Court into various factors.41 Firstly, the extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by
itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. In the present
case, the trial court has convicted the accused based on the confession made by them.
The court has duly made sure that the confession of the accused matched the chain of
circumstantial evidence found during the investigation. Secondly, it should be made
voluntarily and should be truthful. The accused used to send the deceased to one of
the neighbors for math tuition. They had to maintain good relations with the
neighbors also. Their lavish lifestyle with the bare minimum amount they received
out of their wages could have pointed fingers at the family. Therefore, the family had
said about Varun to all their neighbors. Third, an extra-judicial confession attains
greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent
circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Fourth, for
an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any
material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.42 Fifth, such a statement
essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with the law.
6. In Baskaran v. State of TN,43 the court stated that is not open to any court to start with
the presumption that extra-judicial confession is insufficient to convict the accused,
even though it is supported by other circumstantial evidence and corroborated by
38
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.
39
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 644, para 19.
40
Lokeman Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2001 Cr LJ 2196.
41
Sahadevan v. State of TN, (2012) 6 SCC 403.
42
Brahma v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595.
43
Baskaran v. State of TN, (2014) 5 SCC 765 (para 17).
21
independent witnesses, as is the position in the instant case and the courts cannot be
unmindful of the legal position, that if the evidence relating to extra-judicial
confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and
acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction.
7. In Re Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission,44 an

inquiry into removal for the misbehavior of a member of the Public Service
Commission, the evidence given by an official of the PSC was sought to be
corroborated by a confessional statement made earlier by such an official. The court
said that even if the confessional statement was not evidenced under section 10, it
could not be discarded while considering the acceptability of his evidence on the
point of misbehavior. Similarly, in the present case, the extra-judicial confession by
the accused to the neighbours formed an important piece of evidence that was further
investigated by the police. Only after the investigation, a police report was submitted
to the magistrate.
8. In Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana,45 the Supreme Court did not interfere in the order
of conviction for the bride burning on the basis of proper appreciation of
circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession. In the present case, the heinous
offense of rape, and forced prostitution have been committed by the accused. The girl
was raped by more than one man, which led to her death.
9. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde,46 where four accused persons

were alleged to have conspired together to commit offenses of abduction and murder
of children, a confession by one of them in respect of what the other accused persons
did about their common intention was admissible as evidence as much against the
confessing accused as against the others. In the present case, the crime has jointly
been committed by Nisha, Madhavan, and Varun. Therefore, the confession by only
one of the accused would suffice for the conviction of the others.
10. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the extra-judicial confession made by Devi’s
family to the police matches the circumstantial evidence retrieved from the
44
Re Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, AIR 2007 SC 2809.
45
Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 37.
46
State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691.
22
preliminary investigation. Hence, the conviction can be based on the confession made
by Devi’s family.

23
III- THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN NOT BE ORDERED IN THIS CASE, IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BY THE HIGH COURT.
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that all the procedure established by
the law has been followed in the present case, a thorough investigation has been
conducted by the state police, and the chain of circumstantial evidence has been
found by the police during the investigation. The confession of the accused also
matches the circumstances that led to the crime. Hence, the investigation done by
the state police is sufficient to administer justice in the present case, and no
reinvestigation is required.
2. It is humbly submitted that the hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not use its
inherent powers under Section 48247 of the Cr. P.C., to order a reinvestigation or any
further investigation by the CBI. The state police have duly performed their duty by
collecting appropriate evidence. CBI was formed to investigate cases of corruption
and economic fraud. CBI has been called for an investigation in various cases where
any kind of evidence was not available against any certain accused. However, in the
present case, the state police have discovered all possible evidence against the
accused.
3.1 The investigation done by the police is sufficient to administer justice in the
present case.
3. It is humbly submitted that the police have found the chain of circumstances that led
to the crime, which is a sufficient form of evidence. The extra-judicial confession of
the accused matches the chain of circumstances made by the police.
The couple adopted the newborn, an unwanted child of a 16-year-old woman. Nisha
and Madhavan were very poor, finding difficulty in even earning their daily bread.
Raising a child involves a huge investment. The couple instead made Devi their
investment by using her as a prostitute to fulfill their financial needs. Nisha’s nephew
Varun used to visit the house very often. He also used to aid the family financially.
The girl had no one to talk to about what she was suffering from. In the last days of
her life, she was grievously injured. She didn’t talk about the pain she had to anyone.
47
Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 482.
24
If the family claims that they were deeply attached to the girl then they would have
known that their child had such a grievous injury. The doctors found that the girl had a
severe and deadly wound Devi had on her neck.
The suspicion of the police turned to confirmation after a thorough investigation. 48
The family has very hideously tried to conceal their motives by alleging that the police
have mentally and physically tortured them. The family has also tried to shift the
blame on the maths tutor, to whom Devi used to go. They didn’t tell anything about
this at the time of arrest, or during their statements being recorded. In the present case,
the facts have been proved by the evidence and this has given rise to a reasonable
inference of guilt of the accused.49
4. In Pakala Narain Swami v. Emperor,50 Lord Atkin observed, ‘A confession must

either admit in terms the offense or at any rate substantially all the facts that
constituted the offense. In the present case, the accused have agreed and presented
the entire chain of circumstances that led to the crime. There is no scope for further
investigation.51
5. In Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar,52 the Supreme Court pointed out that there was
nothing wrong or relying on a part of the confessional statement and rejecting the
rest.
6. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the police have
collected enough evidence that could sufficiently prove the involvement of Devi’s
family in the crime. Hence, the present investigation by the police is sufficient to
administer justice in the present case.
3.2 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not use its inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., to order a reinvestigation or any further investigation
by the CBI.
48
State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144.
49
Narayan v Executive Officer, C.P Board, AIR 1965 Ker 73.
50
Pakala Narain Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47.
51
Palvinder Kaur v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.
52
Nishi Kant Jha v. the State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422.
25
7. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High court of Cherela need not order
reinvestigation or any further investigation by the CBI in the present case, as there
are sufficient evidence and circumstantial chains that prove the involvement of
Devi’s family in the crime. There exists no other suspect or undiscovered material
facts that have not been investigated by the state police.
8. In Devendra Nath Singh v. The State of Bihar,53 it was held that the High Courts
have the power to order further investigation\ reinvestigation in appropriate cases
under Section 482 CrPC, but "such powers to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and in exceptional cases.". Reinvestigation wipes out the
investigation done earlier and it only results in a delay of justice.54 Reinvestigation
should not be ordered unless the Court is confirmed there has been a flawed
investigation.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswami,55 1977 AIR 1489,
stated three conditions in only which the inherent jurisdiction for reinvestigation
may be exercised, namely,” to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse
of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice”. In the aforementioned
case, none of the conditions apply; the due process of investigation and collection of
evidence was conducted by the police and there is no discovery of new facts or
evidence. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there is no reason for the High
Court to order reinvestigation.
10. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & ... v. Sahngoo Ram Arya And anr.,56 the Supreme
Court held that a CBI investigation cannot be ordered on mere asking by the de
facto complainant; mere allegations against the police are not sufficient. The High
Court can order reinvestigation only if there is prima facie evidence regarding the
allegations.57
11. In Himanshu Kumar v. the State Of Chhatisgarh,58 a writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution was filed in which the writ petitioners alleged that the
53
Devendra Nath v. the State of Bihar, MANU/SCOR/100845/2022.
54
Vinod Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others APPLICATION u/s 482 no. - 12352 of 2004.
55
State of Karnataka v. Muniswami, AIR 1977 SC 1489.
56
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & ... v. Sahngoo Ram Arya And anr, AIR 2002 SC 2225.
57
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. UOI, AIR 1999 SC 2979.
58
Himanshu Kumar v. the State of Chattishgarh, MANU/SC/0891/2022.
26
Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum
(group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government), and the
Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions were alleged
to be responsible for the brutal massacre of the tribals in the villages of
Gachhanpalli, Gompad and Belpocha respectively situated in the district of
Dantewada, State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners were demanding that CBI takes
over the investigation. The Supreme Court held that an investigation cannot be
handed over to the CBI at the mere request of the complainant. The Supreme Court
noted that the power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly and only in
exceptional circumstances.59
12. In State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal,60 the Supreme Court ruled that an investigation can be handed over to the
CBI in exceptional and rare cases and it is not a routine process. As per the Court, in
cases where there is prima facie evidence that the investigation is flawed, the
investigation can be handed over to the CBI.
13. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that sufficient evidence
has been found against Devi’s family. There are no other possible suspects or
evidence that could possibly be investigated. Re-investigation or further
investigation by the CBI will only delay justice. Hence, no further investigation is
required to be ordered by the High Court in the interest of justice.
59
Romila Thappar v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4683.
60
State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571.
27
IV- THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY GROUND FOR QUASHING THE
TRIAL.
1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the trial court has rightfully
convicted Devi’s family. The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not quash the trial
of the lower court using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
2. It is humbly submitted that the trial court has rightfully convicted Varun u/s 376 61 and
372 IPC,62 u/s 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, 63 and u/s 564 (n) and S-
665 of the POCSO Act and to Nisha and Madhavan u/s 4 and 5 66 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act 1956.
4.1 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela need not quash the trial court’s decision.
3. It is humbly submitted that High Court need not quash the conviction given by the
trial court under Section 482 of CrPC, as the judgment given by the trial court is
appropriate and is based on a thorough investigation done by the police.
4. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,67 the Supreme Court of India
considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to
quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position
by laying down various guidelines to be followed by High Courts in the exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint. Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offense or make out a case
against the accused. Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offense,
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
61
I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 376.
62
I.P.C., 1860, Sec. 372.
63
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956, Sec. 5.
64
POCSO ACT, 2012, Sec. 5.
65
POCSO ACT, 2012, Sec. 6.
66
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, Sec. 4.
67
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604.
28
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offense in a case against
the accused. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offense
but constitute only a non-cognizable offense, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable based on which, no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where
there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
5. In Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.,68 the Honourable Court
observed that the criminal complaint or a charge sheet can only be quashed by
superior courts in exceptional circumstances, such as when the allegations in a
complaint do not support a prima facie case for an offense.
6. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque,69 the Supreme Court
has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed but such a power is to be exercised
sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been
specifically laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It was further observed
that superior courts "may examine the questions of fact" when the use of criminal law
machinery could be like an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice.
7. In Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan,70 the Supreme Court held that ordinarily power
under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to
interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offense
by the provisions of CrPC. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the
68
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 1869.
69
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque AIR 2005 SC 9.
70
Teeja Devi v. the State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221.
29
allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offense, interference
with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases
where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious. In the
present case, the police did a thorough and appropriate investigation, abstaining from
any malicious and vexatious acts or motives.
8. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim,71 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that this Section (482) does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It merely
safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by the High Court necessary to
secure the ends of justice.72 But when any alternative remedy is available to the
Petitioner in the Court which is seized of the matter, it is not proper for the High Court
to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 or even under the revisional jurisdiction.
It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only
when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is
provided by the statute.
9. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the trial court has
rightfully scrutinized the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightfully
convicted the accused. The hon’ble high court need not exercise its powers under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash the trial.
4.2 The trial court has rightfully convicted Varun u/s 376 and 372 IPC, u/s 5 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, and u/s 5 (n) and S-6 of the POCSO Act
and to Nisha and Madhavan u/s 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
1956.
10. It is humbly submitted that the girl has been raped by multiple men. She had a severe
injury and all this could not have been done without the knowledge of the de-facto
guardians.
11. In the present case, Devi’s home was the place where her parents forced her into
prostitution. It is not required that a brothel is needed for carrying out the activities of
71
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naim AIR 1964 SC 703.
72
Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.
30
prostitution. In Kadek Dwi Ani Rashmini v. K. Natarajan,73 spa and massage centers
were used for prostitution. The court held that these centers should be closed down
and the people who ran these centers were punished u/s 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956.
12. In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.,74 the trial court acquitted the accused
but the High Court convicted them. Negativing the contention of the appellants that
the High Court could not have disturbed the findings facts of the Trial Court even if
that view was not correct.75
13. The Bombay High Court in Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra,76 held that
“Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act pertains to procuring, inducing or
taking [person] for the sake of prostitution. The offense is complete when a person
procures another person for prostitution or induces a such person to go from any place
with the intent that such person becomes the inmate of a brothel or to take such a person
from one place to another to carry on prostitution.”
14. In Ravi Sharma v. the State (Government of NCT),77 the Supreme Court has stated that,
generally, there are no perversity in the decision of the trial court, and the reversal of the
decision of the trial court by the high court could be unwarranted.
15. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the trial court has gone
through the charge sheet and the police report, examined and cross-examined the
witnesses, and then only passed a judgment in the best interest of justice. Hence, the High
Court need not quash the trial of the lower court.
PRAYER
73
Kadek Dwi Ani Rashmini v. K. Natarajan, MANU/TN/0114/2019.
74
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0218/2002.
75
Sannaia Subba Rao and Ors. vs. State of A.P., MANU/SC/3313/2008.
76
Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/2420/2018.
77
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT), MANU/SC/0856/2022.
31
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced, it
most humbly prayed & implored before the Hon’ble SC of Indica, that it may be graciously
pleased to adjudge & declare that–
1. The charge sheet, police reports, and evidence were not manipulated by Police
Officers, and that they were faultless.
2. The confessions made by Devi’s family are admissible in the court and reliable for
conviction.
3. A proper investigation has already been conducted, and there is no need for a re-
investigation
4. The decision of the lower court is to be upheld.
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, & GOOD
CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY
BOUND FOREVER PRAY.
Respectfully Submitted
Counsel for Respondents.

Memorandum On Behalf of The Respondents (SNBP)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Memorandum On Behalf of The Respondents (SNBP)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE-

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHERALA

Ms. Nisha, Mr. Varun, and Mr. Madhavan

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

II- THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS MADE BY

III- THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN NOT BE ORDERED IN THIS CASE, IN THE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Del Delhi High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Mad. Madras High Court

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

Raj Rajasthan High Court

Ori Orissa High Court

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

BomCR Bombay Cases Reporter

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey, AIR 1984 SC 452.............................................................................13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Narayan v Executive Officer, C.P Board, AIR 1965 Ker 73....................................................23

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Cr. P.C., 1971, Sec. 157............................................................................................................11

TOMLIN'S LAW DICTIONARY, Vol 2, p 1811....................................................................14

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

The daily routine of the family

Circumstances leading to the death

The case before the High Court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

II- That conviction can be based on confessions made by Devi’s family.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

I- THAT THE CHARGE SHEET, POLICE REPORTS, AND EVIDENCE

cognizable offense based on an FIR or other information received. 5 It is necessary to

of a crime. Consequently, a verbal statement to a police officer during the time of

II- THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS MADE

2. It is humbly submitted that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

3. The Supreme Court in Kadamanian @ Manikandan v. State,37 relied on the extra-

4. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not in itself a confession. 38 Extra-

5. The principles governing the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession capable of

7. In Re Sayalee Sanjeev Joshi, Member, Maharashtra Public Service Commission,44 an

9. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde,46 where four accused persons

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

III- THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN NOT BE ORDERED IN THIS CASE, IN

4. In Pakala Narain Swami v. Emperor,50 Lord Atkin observed, ‘A confession must

4. The decision of the lower court is to be upheld.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

You might also like