FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

TEAM CODE: - F03

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM
THAKUR RAMNARAYAN COLLEGE OF LAW 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (Criminal) No…………OF

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA

IN THE MATTER OF:-

PEOPLE’S HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION …………………PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIVA ………………..RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Page 1 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………… 3-4

II. LIST OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………… 5-6

• STATUTES
• ARTICLES AND BOOKS
• WEBSITES
• OTHER AUTHORITIES

III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………… 7

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………. 8-9

V. STATEMENT OF ISSUE …………………………………………… 10

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………… 11

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………… 12-24

• Issue-01 Whether PIL is maintainable or not? 12- 15
• Issue-02 Whether the case should be remanded back to the court of sessions? 16-24

VIII. PRAYERS…………………………………………………… 25

Page 2 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS
0

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

§ And
¶ Paragraph
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
A.I.R All India Radio
All Allabad
Anr Another Art Article
Cal Calutta
C.B.I Central Bureau of Investigation
Co. Company
Cr. P.C Criminal Procedure Court
Dr. Doctor
Ed Edition
Etc And So On
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
i.e That is
I.L.R Indiva Law Report
J.J Juvenile Justice
L.T.D Limited
M.P Madhya Pradesh
MFG Manufacture
NCRB National Crime Record Bureau
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
PEPC Public of the education and protection of
children

Page 3 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Prof. Professor
SC Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R Supreme Court Report
S.C.W Supreme Court Weekly
Sec Section
U.O.I Union Of India
U.P Uttar Pradesh
UNCRC United Nation Convention on The Rights
of The Child
US United States
V. Versus
VS. Versus
vis-à-vis May Refer To

Page 4 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

I. Cases:
1. A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. RamchandSobhraj
Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506.
2. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,.
3. BinnyLtd.And Anr.VSadasivan and ors. AIR 2005 SC 320 (para 11)
4. Constitution of Indiva,Pare materia to constitution of Indiva
5. GuruvayoorDevaswon Managing Committee and other v C.K Rajan and Other,
(2003) 1 SCC 546
6. I.R Colho vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 750
7. Indian council for enviro legal action vs Union of India (2011) 8 sec 161(para 20)
8. Kavita vs. State of Tamilnadu (1998 (5) JT SC151)
9. M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395
10. Makhan Sigh v. State of Punjab,
11. Mohd. Abu Jarsa Afzal Shah vs State on 19 September, 2
12. Narayana v. State, 1999
13. Pakkiriswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu,
14. R. v. Eagleton
15. Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1986 Supp. SCC
517
16. S.P Gupta and others v. Union Of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87;
17. Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895]
18. Shivaji Rao NilangekerPartil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, 1987 1 SCC 227
19. Sripur Paper Mills v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1970) AIR 1520.
20. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22

Page 5 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of Indiva, 1950

2. Indivan Penal Code, 1860
3. Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2009
4. The Indivan Evidence Act

ARTICLES AND BOOKS

1. The code of criminal procedure

2. Law of Relating to protections of Human
Rights[second edition]
3. The Law of Evidence
4. Criminology

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. www.scaline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.Ipleaders
4. www.casemine.com
5. www.indiankanoon.com

Page 6 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under

Art.32 of the Constitution of Indiana.

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indiana read as: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred

by this Part

(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 power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs

in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, QuoWarranto 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 Cl.( 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

Page 7 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts of the case are summarised as –
One Mr. Rajesh murdered his wife in a drunken rage at night in his house. Then he fled away
from the scene and took shelter, in his friend Vicky’s house. After a few hours, when he came
to his senses, he narrated the incident to Vicky. After hearing this, Vicky handed him over to
the police. Mr. Rajesh was then tried by the Sessions Court and without examining other
witnesses, only based on extra-judicial confession; he was convicted for an offense
punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019.

Mr. Rajesh was sent to the Central Prison in Nampur. In the prison, he met with one Naresh
and they became good friends. After they became friends, Naresh put a proposal before
Rajesh to marry his daughter. In the meantime, Rajesh was released on bail by the Hon’ble
High Court of Maharajya in the year 2020.

In 2020, the marriage between Rajesh and Naresh’s daughter was solemnized. Out of this
wedlock, they were blessed with twin baby boys.

However, by the year 2021, Rajesh had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife. They had
heated arguments between them about the same and in a state of anger, Rajesh hacked his
wife to death by an agricultural spade. He then killed his two children who were sleeping and
then he tried to commit suicide. At that time, after hearing the noise, the neighbors rushed in
and overpowered him.

The matter was tried by the Sessions Court. The defense lawyer did not cross-examine
witnesses of the prosecution nor did he produce any evidence on record. Thereafter, Rajesh
was sentenced to death under Section 302, IPC by the Sessions Court for the reason that
Rajesh was on earlier occasion convicted for an offense punishable u/s 302, IPC, and the
present case falls in the category of “rarest of rare”. High Court of Maharajya confirmed the
death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court.

In Appeal before the Supreme Court by Special Leave, the defense counsel argued that the
appeal against the punishment under Section 302, IPC for murdering his first wife is still
pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Maharajya and the punishment of life

Page 8 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

imprisonment u/s 302 of IPC only based on extra-judicial confession will vitiate the very
purpose of justice. As regards the second conviction, it was argued that Rajesh was not given
a fair opportunity to defend and therefore the entire trial is vitiated.

When the Division Bench of Supreme Court could not reach a consensus, the matter was
referred to a third judge. The third Judge felt that there was no reason to interfere in the
matter and confirmed the sentence of death in July 2021. Rajesh then submitted a Mercy
Petition in the year 2021 to the President of Indiva which was rejected in the year 2022.

On 11th February 2022, the black warrant for the execution of Rajesh has been issued by the
appropriate authority. The very next day, Human Rights activists, ‘Peoples Human Rights
Association, Maharajya’, filed a Public Interest Litigation claiming that Rajesh cannot be
executed because his trials were vitiated by illegalities and his execution would violate
several provisions of the Constitution of Indiva. Therefore, this is a fit case that deserves to
be remanded back to the Court of Sessions.

The Counsels representing the Petitioners have endorsed their Pleadings before the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiva.

Note: - Laws in Indiva are the same as laws in India

Page 9 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

Statements of Issues

ISSUE NO. I:

WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE NO. II:

WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE COURT OF

SESSIONS?

Page 10 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO I: WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed with the apprehension of
violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.
The present petition is maintainable under Art. 32 of the Constitution 1 Since it falls within the
ambit of “The State” as enriched under Art. 12 of the Constitution. Public function is one
which “seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the Public” 2
further under the well-established doctrine “Parens Patriae”, it is the obligation of the state to
protect and take into custody the rights and privilege of its citizen for discharging its
obligation.

ISSUE NO. II: WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE
COURT OF SESSIONS?

The case should be remanded back in the Session Court as firstly, the fundamental rights of
the petitioner have been violated, secondly, The convict’s trials were based on the illegalities,
trinity to the above-mentioned reasons the ferule granted by the legal authorities was in the
disapprobation to the state of affairs as the trials were not properly established since the
conviction is based on the trials.
Rajesh cannot be executed on the grounds that his trials are vitiated by illegalities and his
execution would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indiva.

1
Consitution of Indiana, Pare materia to constitution of India
2
BinnyLtd.An dAnr.V Sadasivan and ors. AIR 2005 SC 320 (para 11

Page 11 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

ARGUMENTS ADVANCEMENT

ISSUE NO I: WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. Public interest litigation is the use of the law to advance human rights and equality or
raise issues of broad public concern. It helps advance the cause of minority or
disadvantaged groups or individuals.
2. Public interest cases may arise from both public and private law matters. Public law
concerns the various rules and regulations that govern the exercise of power by public
bodies. Private law concerns those cases in which a public body is not involved, and
can be found in areas such as employment law or family law. Public interest litigation
is most commonly used to challenge the decisions of public authorities by judicial
review. A judicial review is a form of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the
lawfulness of a decision or action, or a failure to act, by a public body. Judicial review
is concerned with whether the law has been correctly applied, and the right procedures
have been followed.
3. The writ petition filed in the Supreme Court is maintainable as: firstly, there is no
existence of an efficacious alternative remedy and secondly, the writ is maintainable
on account of contravention of any fundamental right. The fundamental rights of the
petitioner have been violated. Even so, the fundamental rights are subject to inherent
limitations which are imposed by the Constitution itself, and the existence of no
alternative remedies is sufficient to make the petition approve.

I.1 PETITIONER HAS A LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE

4. It is humbly submitted that the Apex Court in the S.P Gupta 3 case held that the test
for determining the standing in individual interest cannot be strictly applied to the
public interest. The court has expanded the concept of “Affected Party” in the case of
Public interest.

S.P Gupta and others v. Union Of India, 1981 Supp. SCC 87;
3

M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 ;

Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1986 Supp. SCC 517

Page 12 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

5. As it is humbly submitted that the Apex court in Shivaji Rao Nilangeker Parti 4 and
also in Guruvajoor Devasean 5Managing committee and Another case held that the
petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of the
personal grievance the court in furtherance of the Public interest may treat it
necessary to enquire into the state of the affairs of the subject of the litigation in the
interest of justice.
6. All the requirements of instituting PIL have been filled in the instant case. First, there
is a violation of fundamental rights. Second, the petitioner represents the rights of the
public.

1.2. PETITIONER HAS A MANDAMUS IN THE INSTANT CASE

7. This power of issue of writs is mentioned in Article 32 & Article 226 of the Indiva
Constitution which gives the power to the Supreme Court and the High court to issue
writs when the fundamental right of a citizen is violated.
8. A writ of mandamus is issued by a judge on the request made by a plaintiff requiring
a public authority or a statutory body to constitutionally perform a task which they are
obliged to do. This writ can also be issued to compel a lower court or the government
to perform a duty or to restrain from misusing its power. Thus, this power of the court
to issue a writ of mandamus is executed mainly on the court’s discretion and
fairgrounds.
9. There exists a legally sanctioned right of the petitioner or the applicant of the writ and
a violation or compromise of this right has been committed.The infringement of the
rights of an applicant can be done by a public authority in the following manners:

a. Crossing the limits of the powers and duties vested to their office.Failure or
omission to act responsibly according to the conditions laid down by the law
for the exercise of their power.
b. Denial by an official or authority to perform their statutory duties.
c. A complete disregard for or contravention of the principles of natural justice.
d. should be applied for in good faith, without any ulterior motive or intent on
the part of the applicant.

4
Shivaji Rao NilangekerPartil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, 1987 1 SCC 227
5
GuruvayoorDevaswon Managing Committee and other v C.K Rajan and Other, (2003) 1 SCC 546

Page 13 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

e. Lastly, the writ of mandamus can only be issued when no other recourse,
redressal mechanism or legal alternatives have been left at the disposal of the
applicant.

10. In the current scenario, the process of competence trial didn’t take place, in the initial
trial the conviction was merely based on extra-judicial confession, none of the
witnesses were scrutinized. Subsequently, the judgment of the second trial was based
on his first conviction.

1.3. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

11. The jurisdiction under Art. 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental Rights are
violated. In the instant case, there has been a direct and inevitable effect on
fundamental rights. It is submitted that in the second part of the submission it will be
shown that there is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14,19 and Article
21 of the Constitution.

I.4 THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PUBLIC INTEREST AND THEREFORE
MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

12. It is submitted that part III of the Constitution which deals with “Fundamental Rights”
is regarded as the basic structure of the Constitution 6. To invoke the writ jurisdiction
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not necessary that the fundamentals rights have been
infringed. A threat to the same would be sufficient 7.
13. Applying the Doctrine of “Reasonable Apprehension”, this Hon’ble Court may
interfere directly in the said case. The most fundamental right of an individual is his
Right to Life; if an administrative decision may his life at risk, the basis for decision
surely calls for the most anxious scrutiny according to the principle of “ Anxious
Scrutiny” 8. The petition filed before this court is maintainable.

6
I.R Colho vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 7 SCC 750
7
Indian council for enviro legal action vs Union of India (2011) 8 sec 161(para 20)
8
Brugdaycay(1987) AC 514, where lord Bridge said at 531 E-G

Page 14 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

I.5. THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS NO BAR

14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the remedy under Article 32 of
the Constitution is discretionary. The Court is vested with the power to entertain the
PIL where there occurs gross miscarriage of justice and an effective remedy is not
available.
15. This rule of exhaustion of the statutory remedy is not rigid but somewhat flexible and
it is primarily a matter of the discretion of the writ court 9 Reliance is placed upon the
decision in the case of Whirlpool’s Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 10, in which it
was held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a
writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would not be affected although there
exist alternative statutory remedies.
16. Thus the petitioner humbly submits that PIL is maintainable as the existence of
alternative remedy is not a bar.

9
A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. RamchandSobhraj Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 150
10
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1999 SC 22

Page 15 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE

COURT OF SESSIONS?

17. Remand means to send back. Where the trial court has decided the suit on a
preliminary point without recording findings on other issues and if the appellate court
reverses the decree so passed, it may send back the case to the trial court to decide
other issues and determine the suit. This is called remand.
18. According to Black’s Law Dictionary Remand means,
a. The act or an instance of sending something (such as a case, claim, or person)
back for future action.
b. An order remanding a case, claim, or person.

19. By passing an order of remand, an appellate court directs the lower court to reopen
and retry the case. On remand, the trial court will readmit the suit under its original
number in the register of civil suits and will proceed to determine it as per the
directions issued by the appellate court.
20. Section 107 (1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers an appellate court to
remand a case.
21. The case should be remanded back in the Session Court as firstly, the fundamental
rights of the petitioner have been violated, secondly, The convict’s trials are based on
illegalities, trinity to the above-mentioned reasons the ferule granted by the legal
authorities was in the disapprobation to the state of affairs and violate several
provisions of the Constitution of Indiva.
22. Mr. Rajesh murdered his wife in a drunken rage at night in his house. Then he fled
away and took shelter, in his friend Vicky’s house. After a few hours, when he came
into his senses, he narrated the incident to Vicky. After hearing this, Vicky handed
him over to the police. Mr. Rajesh was then tried by the Sessions Court and without
examining other witnesses, only on the basis of extra-judicial confession; he was
convicted for offense

Page 16 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

2.1. WHAT IS EXTRA-JUDICIAL EVIDENCE? AND ITS RELEVANCE AS

EVIDENCE IN THE EYES OF LAW?

23. These are the confession that is made by the accused elsewhere than before a
magistrate or in court. It is not necessary that the statements should have been
addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken place in the form of a prayer.

a. It may be a confession to a private person.

b. It is not necessary that the statements should have been addressed to any
definite individual. It may have taken place in the form of a prayer.
24. An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “a free and voluntary confession of
guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge
or magistrate seized of the charge against himself. After the commission of a crime, a man
may write a letter to his relation or friend expressing his sorrow over the matter. This may
amount to a confession.
25. Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the
test of credibility. Extra-judicial confession is generally made before a private person which
includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity.
26. The Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy
the following requirements:
a. The confession must be voluntary
b. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel,
preferably of the confession’s choice
c. It must be expressed or implied in its nature.
27. Dealing with the issue of extra-judicial confession, Delhi high court in the case of Mohd. Abu
Jarsa Afzal Shah vs State 11

a. Wherever the Court, upon the due appreciation of the entire prosecution
evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must
ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
b. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or
inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution

11
Mohd. Abu Jarsa Afzal Shah vs State on 19 September, 2 Date of decision: 19th September, 2012
Pakkiriswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu,
Makhan Sigh v. State of Punjab
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab,

Page 17 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a

confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling
such evidence out of consideration.
c. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is
a weak piece of evidence.

28. An extra- Judicial confession, if voluntary can be relied upon by the court along with other
evidence in convicting the accused:
a. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact
b. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence
depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made.

29. In the case of Kavita vs. the state of Tamil Nadu12 the supreme cold held that,
a. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession
but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of
evidence.
b. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon
the veracity of the witness to whom it is made.
c. It may not be necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be
given by the witness but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the
evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses
30. If the rule is inflexible that the court should insist only on the exact words, more often as not,
this kind of evidence, sometimes more reliable and useful, will have to be excluded for,
except perhaps in the case of a person of good memory, many witnesses cannot repeat the
exact words of the accused.

2.2. Illegal Trial

31. Mr. Rajesh narrated the incident to Vicky. After hearing this, Vicky handed him over
to the police. Mr. Rajesh was then tried by the Sessions Court and without examining
other witnesses, only on the basis of extra judicial confession; he was convicted for
offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in
2019.

12
Kavita vs. State of Tamilnadu (1998 (5) JT SC151)

Page 18 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

32. Section 164 of CRPC deals with the extra-judicial confession stating that: Sec 164
also states that if the extra-judicial confession was made voluntarily the same can be
used as a shred of evidence. and is justified before the court once it is proved that the
confession was made with the free consent of the offender.
33. This extra-judicial confession is dealt with in Sections 24 and 27 of the Indiva
Evidence Act, 1872.
34. The relevancy and admissibility of extra-judicial confession and discovery of facts are
governed by Section 24 and Sec 27 of the Indiva Evidence Act.
35. Sec 24 deals with the admissibility of confession made to a person in authority other
than a judicial authority and the conditions stipulated for their admissibility.
Sec 24 of the Indiva Evidence Act states thus:
a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if
the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any
inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused
person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the
court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for
supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal nature about the proceedings against him”.
36. To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be
established:
a. That the statement in question is a confession,
b. That such confession has been made by the accused,
c. That it has been made to a person in authority,
d. That the confession has been obtained because of any inducement, threat, or
promise, proceeding from a person in authority,
37. Such inducement, threat, or promise must have reference to the charge against the
accused, and
38. The inducement, threat, or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to
give the accused ground, which would appear to him reasonable, for supporting that
by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature
about the proceedings against him.

39. Sec. 27 of the Indiva Evidence Act relates to the admissibility of fact discovered as a
consequence of information given, while the accused is in Police custody.

40. Sec 27 of the Indivan Evidence Act states:

Page 19 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

“Provided that when the fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from a person accused of any offense in the custody of a Police
Officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved”
41. The privy council dealt with the essentials of Sec 27 of the Indivan Evidence Act and
pointed out thus:
a) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.
The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the
prescriptions relating to the relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the
crime to make the facts discovered admissible.
b) The fact must have been discovered.
c) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received
from the accused and not by the accused’s act.
d) The person giving the information must be accused of any offense He must be
in the custody of a Police Officer.
e) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an
accused in custody must be deposed.

42. Therefore, only a portion of the information that relates distinctly or strictly to the fact
discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.

2.3 Motive
43. In the case of “Criminal Attempt”, it is the motive that makes the act wrongful though
the act was not itself wrongful.
44. Usually, a person’s motive can be determined by looking at various factors leading up
to the commission of the crime. Although investigators may be able to determine a
person’s motive, that does not link them to the crime; the prosecutor does not have to
prove the defendant had a reason to engage in criminal behaviour. However, a judge
or jury may consider motive when hearing the case.

45. Thus the Motives are –

a. A state of mind that accelerates or gives rise to intention.
b. An unexpressed intention.
c. An instigation to gear up the intention.
d. A clue or the reason or the thought behind the intention.

Page 20 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

e. Not essentially there in a Criminal Case.

f. Irrelevant to prove someone guilty, but relevant on the question of intention.
46. On Narayana v. State, 1999 13 even though the prosecution had established the case
concerning the motive, the Madras High Court was of the view that the motive alone
would not be sufficient to hold that the accused committed the murder of the deceased
on the day of occurrence, which has taken place after the earlier Occurrence The High
Court, therefore, did not give any importance to the aspect of the evidence relating to
the motive. Motive is not relevant in absence of proof of any other circumstances
pointing to the guilt of accused 14
47. If there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the
adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know from experience that
atrocious crimes have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from
malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage and to drive off for a
time pressing difficulties” But the absence of any apparent motive is always a
circumstance in favour of the accused 15.
48. Motive on the part of an accused may be held to be the reason for committing a crime,
the same may also lead to false implications 16. Suspicion against the accused based
on their motive to commit the crime cannot by itself lead to a judgment of conviction
If there was enmity between the parties then that would bring clear-cut evidence of
the motive 17
49. The motive undoubtedly so far as circumstantial evidence is concerned is a forceful
factor to establish the guilt of the accused, but at the same time, the motive alone
cannot lead to the conviction of the accused when other circumstances according to
the law are not proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 18
50. Motive cannot by itself, sustain a criminal charge although proof of motive may lend
assurance to the evidence concerning the actual occurrence. 19

14
CrLJ 4994 (4999)
15
Surender Kumar v. State of Panjab, 1999 CrLJ 267 (SC)
16
Nort pp. 108-109 ; Wilis Cir Ev p. 59 et seq
17
Slate of Bihar v. Biswanat Singh, 2009 (3) Pat LJR 521 (528) (Pat-DBI
18
Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 CrLJ 372 (377) : 2007 AIR SCW 6475 : (2007) 4
Crimes 140
19
Haru Ghosh v. Slate of W. B., (2009) 15 SCC 551 (557) : (2009) 4 Crimes 1

Page 21 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

2.4 Intention
51. One of the most important ingredients of a crime is Mens rea i.e. an intention to do a
wrongful act knowing the evil consequences of the same. The element of Mens rea is
indicated by use of words such as intention, malice, fraudulent, recklessness etc.
There must be a mind at fault before commission of an offence. Mens rea includes
both the intention to do an act as well as abstaining from doing an act which is
required to be done. Mere intention to do a wrongful act is itself prohibited by law.
An accused will be held guilty if it’s proved that he had an intention to commit the
crime but the burden of proof lies on the opposite party and there should be sufficient
justification to conclude that intention existed.
52. Intent refers to a person’s conscious decision to commit an act that violates state or
federal laws. Generally, intent is an element of an offense that the prosecutor must
prove. For example, in Florida, a person commits battery when they “actually
or intentionally touch or strike another person.” or they “intentionally cause bodily
harm to another person.” Returning to the example of Bill and Barry, if Bill was
waving his hands in the air while telling a story and accidentally hit Barry, his actions
were not intentional, and he would not be charged with battery. However, if he
purposefully punched Barry, he may be charged.
53. In Sherras’s case 20 the court held that Mens rea is an essential ingredient of crime
except in (1) cases not criminal in real sense but which in the public interest are
prohibited under a penalty, (2) public nuisance, and (3) cases criminal in form but
which are really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.
54. Principle of criminal jurisprudence that a crime is not committed if the mind of a
person doing the act in a question, is innocent.
55. Subject-matter and may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether or not there
has been any intention to break the law otherwise to do wrong.
56. At common law, an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances
which, if true, would make the act for which man is indicted an innocent act, is a good
defense 21. The general rule is that there must be a mind at fault before there can be a
crime.

20
Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895]
21
1 Hale, PC 42; 23 QBD (181) per Caves, J.

Page 22 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

57. If often happens that where it is necessary to prove a man’s intention, shreds of
evidence of overt acts are sufficient, because every man is deemed prima facie to
intend the necessary or even natural or probable consequences of his acts. 22
58. When an act is done, the law judges not only of the act itself, but of the intent with
which it was done 23; and if the act be coupled with unlawful and malicious intent,
though in itself the act would otherwise have innocent, yet, the intent being criminal,
the act likewise becomes criminal and punishable 24
59. In R. v. Eagleton 25, the court, after observing that, although “the mere intention to
commit a misdemeanour is not criminal”.

2.5 Violation of Fundamental Rights

60. In Appeal before the Supreme Court by Special Leave, the defence counsel argued
that the appeal against the punishment under Section 302, IPC for murdering his first
wife is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Maharajya and the punishment
of life imprisonment u/s 302 of IPC only on the basis of extra judicial confession will
vitiate the very purpose of justice. As regards the second conviction, it was argued
that Rajesh was not given a fair opportunity to defend and therefore the entire trial is
vitiated.
The jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court is exercisable only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part 3 of the constitution.
Fundamental rights are the basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution of
Indiva which are guaranteed to all citizens. They are applied without discrimination based on
race, religion, gender, etc. Significantly, fundamental rights are enforceable by the courts,
subject to certain conditions.

61. These rights are called fundamental rights because of two reasons:

a. They are enshrined in the Constitution which guarantees them

b. They are justiciable (enforceable by courts). In case of a violation, a person
can approach a court of law.

22
Per Ld. Campbell in Ferguson v. Kinnoul, 9 Cl&F 321
23
Dugdale v. R., 1 E&B 435 (439)
24
R. v. Scofield, 2 East PC 1028 (1030)
25
R-v. Eagleton, (1855) Dears 515.

Page 23 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

62. Article 14 – Equality before the law, the state shall not deny any person equality
before the law or equal protection of law within the territorial limits of Indiva or
prohibition on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex, or place of birth. Article 19 –
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and expression. All citizens
shall have the right
a) To freedom of speech and expression
b) To assemble peacefully and without arms
c) To form associations or unions
d) To move freely throughout the territory of Indiva
e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of Indiva, and
f) To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business
63. Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, no person shall be deprived of his
liberty except according to the procedures established by law.
64. The right to equality is also part of Article 21 of the Indivan Constitution which is the
fundamental right. This right includes equality before the law, the prohibition of
discrimination, etc. No citizen can be discriminated against based on sex, caste, color,
creed, or religion. And it is a fundamental right that cannot be violated by anyone. If
this right is violated then it is the dishonor of Article 21.
65. Equality before law:
The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of laws within the territory of Indiva. The rule of law is governed by the
State Government or the people who are appointed by the law. Equality before the
law means every person has to follow the rules and regulations of law that are
implemented under the Constitution of Indiva. No law should be violated by any
person. If anyone violates the rule of law they are punishable by a court of law

Page 24 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 FRESHER’S MOOT PROBLEM

PRAYERS

Wherefore In The Light of the Issues Raised, Argument Advanced, Reasons Given And
Authorities Cited, This Hon’ble Court May Graciously Be Pleased To adjudge, hold and
declare:

1. The PIL is maintainable.

2. To declare, that the act is constitutionally unsound and that government hasn’t
followed all the necessary directives.
3. To declare, that there is a gross violation of fundamental rights.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice, and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the petitioner
shall Duty-bound forever pray.
S.d/-

(Counsel for the Petitioner)

Page 25 of 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER