RESPONDENT Fresher’s Moot Problem 2022 NMCC-231_RTEAM CODE: F-03

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 RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER

P
Page 1 of 32
RESPONDENT F-03

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………..

II. LIST OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………..

• STATUTES
• ARTICLES AND BOOKS
• WEBSITES
• OTHER AUTHORITIES

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

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………….

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

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

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………

VIII. PRAYERS……………………………………………………

Page 2 of 16
RESPONDENT F-03

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

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 Indian Law Report
JJ Juvenile Justice
Ltd Limited
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
MFG Manufacture
NCRB National Crime Record Bureau
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
PEPC People for The Education and Protection of
Children
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Prof Professor
SC Supreme Court
S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R Supreme Court Reports
S.C.W Supreme Court Weekly
Sec Section
U.O.I Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh

Page 3 of 16
RESPONDENT F-03

UNCRC United Nation Convention on The Rights of

The Child
US United States
V. Versus
vis-à-vis May Refer To
VS Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

• Baldev Raj vs State Of Haryana on 17 September, 1990 1991 AIR 37, 1990 SCR Supl. (1)
492 Author: M Fathima Beevi Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J)

STATUTES

• The Constitution of India, 1950

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2009
• The Indian Evidence Act

Page 4 of 16
RESPONDENT F-03

WEBSITES REFERRED

• www.IndianKanoon.com
• www.scconline.com
• www.manupratra.com

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 reads 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, Quo Warranto and Certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by 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 5 of 16
RESPONDENT F-03

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts of the case are summarised as –
1. 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 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 offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019.

2. 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.

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

4. 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 the 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 noise, the
neighbours rushed in and overpowered him.

5. The matter was tried by the Sessions Court. Defence 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 offence 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.

Page 6 of 16
RESPONDENT F-03

6. 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.

7. When the Division bench of Supreme Court could not reach to a consensus, the matter
was referred to a third judge. 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.

8. 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 on the grounds that his trials vitiated by illegalities and his execution
would violate several provisions of the Constitution of Indiva. Therefore, this is a fit case
which deserves to be remanded back to the Court of Sessions.

9. 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 7 of 16
RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO.I:

WHETHER PIL IS MAINTAINENABLE OR NOT

ISSUE NO.II:

WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE COURT OF

SESSIONS ?

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 8 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.I: THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF
THE CONSTITUION OF INDIANA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The writ petition filed in the High Court is not maintainable as: firstly, there existed an efficacious
alternative remedy and secondly, the writ is not maintainable on account of non contravention of
any fundamental right. The fundamental rights of the petitioner have not been violated. Even so, the
fundamental rights are subject to inherent limitations which are imposed by the Constitution itself
and an existence of alternative remedy is sufficient to make the petition fail.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 9 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The case is to be divided into four major sections:

1. Bailment (duration 2019-2020)
This sector of the argument entirely deals with Mr. Rajesh’s first offense and the factor of
his bailment.
A. First offense and his conviction for the same:
Mr. Rajesh who was married to his wife murdered her in a drunken rage at night in his
house. After he committed the aforementioned crime, he flew away from his place and took
shelter at his friend’s (Vicky) place.
The fact that he (Mr. Rajesh) fled away from the scene makes room for Session court to
suspect that he was oblivious to the consequences of the action he took in hindsight.
Since running away from a crime scene knowing that you killed a person requires a sense
of clarity and the fact, he was drunk during his course of actions.
We can infer from this circumstance that the level of alcohol in his body was in a stable
form where he could foresight the consequences of his actions
Ergo to the fact that he absconded from his house and landed at his friend’s house for the
night appears to be quite a calculative reach for him to take while being drunk.
Although he was drunk, he took a calculative approach justifying that he was not fully under
the influence of alcohol.
It is pellucid that he was in a state where his preceding actions and succeeding actions do
not align in the same frame of mind.
After he escaped from the scene and his stay at Mr. Vicky’s place. Mr. Rajesh narrated the
entire scenario to him. This narration was made after Mr. Rajesh came to his senses
completely and was aware of the crime committed by him.
He accepted the fact that the crime was committed by him and was under a state of
intoxication and rage, his actions do not justify taking away someone’s life and then
confessing their crime.
After hearing this narration Mr. Vicky handed Mr. Rajesh to the police. And Mr. Rajesh
was convicted by Session Court, based on the confession given by him.
His entire conviction was based on the extra-judicial confession and the Session court tried
him without examining any other witness.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 10 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

This extra-judicial confession is dealt with in Sections 24 and 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
The relevancy and admissibility of extra-judicial confession and discovery of facts are
governed by Section 24 and Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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 Indian 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”.
To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established:
That the statement in question is a confession,
That such confession has been made by the accused,
That it has been made to a person in authority,
That the confession has been obtained because of any inducement, threat, or promise,
proceeding from a person in authority,
Such inducement, threat, or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused,
and
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.
Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to the admissibility of fact discovered as a
consequence of information given, while the accused is in Police custody.
Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides:
“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”

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 11 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

The privy council dealt with the essentials of Sec 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and pointed
out thus:
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
admissiblem
The fact must have been discovered.
The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the
accused and not by the accused’s act.
The person giving the information must be accused of any offense
He must be in the custody of a Police Officer.
The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody
must be deposed.
Therefore, only a portion of the information that relates distinctly or strictly to the fact
discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
Dealing with the issue of extra-judicial confession, the Supreme Court held in Narayan
Singh’s case as follows:
It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a
weak type of evidence
It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made,
and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession.
Extra judicial confessions of the accused in a criminal case are universally recognized as
admissible in evidence against him, based on the presumption that no one would declare
anything against himself unless such declarations were true.
Accordingly, it has been held that a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it
is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately
and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. The
fundamental rule is that a confession, to be admissible, must be voluntary
In Mulk Raj’s case in the year the Supreme Court further laid down as follows:
An extra- Judicial confession, if voluntary can be relied upon by the court along with other
evidence in convicting the accused
The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 12 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

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
The court indeed requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly
as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the court should not accept the evidence, if
not the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is an invariable rule
that the court should accept the evidence, if not the actual words but substance was given.
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
It is for the court having regard to the credibility of the witnesses, his capacity to understand
the language in which the accused confessed, to accept the evidence or not
In the circumstances, if the evidence of the witnesses is acceptable, there is no reason why
the extra-judicial confession made by the accused could not be acted upon.
Section 164 of CRPC deals with the extra-judicial confession stating that:
Extra-judicial confessions- Are those which are 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.
It may be a confession to a private person.
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. A man after the commission of a
crime may write a letter to his relation or friend expressing his sorrow over the matter. This
may amount to a confession.
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.
The Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must
satisfy the following requirements:
The confession must be voluntary
It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of
the confession’s choice
it must be expressed or implied in its nature.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 13 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

The fact sheet states that the confession was made after Mr. Rajesh was entirely in his senses
and it was a voluntary admission of the crime and hence can be used as evidence.
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. And since everything happened
in his house no other witnesses can be approached unless any neighbor heard the screams
or any other form of sign or commotion which states that Mr. Rajesh's wife was in any sort
of danger and the fact sheet is silent on this matter
And hence can be assumed that the heinous crime was executed in a relatively quiet
environment.
This can be a reason that no neighbor approached the house and hence no other witnesses
were called upon to cross-examine the situation
Neither any pieces of evidence were found where the confession of Mr. Rajesh could Be
under some sort of beneficial doubt for being an aspersion nor was, he in the state of
intoxication or rage while narrating the scene to Mr. Vicky.
Which makes the confession a shred of relevant evidence for his conviction
Punishment: convicted for the offense under sec 300 and punished as per sec 302 of IPC
which was life imprisonment in this case.
Sec 300 of IPC deals with murder:
- Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if
the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be in¬flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or If
the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Essential Ingredients:
The following are the important ingredients of Section 300:
Act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death
With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
death

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 14 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person which is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death
Person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probabilities, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
Sec 302 deals with the punishment for Sec 300:
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or 1 [imprisonment for life], and
shall also be liable to fine.
B. Acceptance of his Bail:
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.
Any offender when commits any sort of crime and is arrested, can apply for bail in this case
which is a remedy for a person to free him from legal custody. If the police are unable to
find any strong evidence or the court is not able to prove that he is guilty then the time he
stayed in jail would be the violation of one of the most important fundamental rights Art.
21 which is the right to life and personal liberty.
It protects citizens when there is a threat to life and freedom. The time the suspect spent in
jail until proven guilty becomes a violation of personal law. Hence denying a person of his
rights hinders the law from providing justice. In 2011, The Hon'ble apex court in Sanjay
Chandra vs CBI also opined that: The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion
of the Court.
The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. But at the same time, the right to bail is not to be denied merely because of
the sentiments of the community against the accused.
The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment,
to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to
keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after
conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance
thereon whenever his presence is required”.

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 15 of 16

RESPONDENT NMCC-231_R

PRAYER

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 not maintainable.

2. To declare, that the act is constitutionally sound and that government has followed
all the necessary directives.

3. To declare, that there is no gross violation of any 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 respondent shall Duty bound
forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel for the Respondent)

MEMORIAL OF THE RESPONDENT Page 16 of 16