S.N.B.P.

LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

S.N.B.P LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT, 2019-20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NYAYSTHAN

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Special Leave Petition)

(Under Article 132 and 134 of the Constitution of Nyaysthan)

Special Leave Petition arising out of the final judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Leebay arising out of the Criminal Appeal No. 2019

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. /2020

National Commission for Women .... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Leebay & others .... Respondent

Most Respectfully Submitted Before The Honourable Justice And His Companion Judges Of
The Supreme Court Of Nyaysthan.

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

Name: Sanober Tehseen Siddiqui

Class: III LL.B (Roll No. 1)

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ... 3

3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 4

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ... 5

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ... 6, 7

6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ... 8

7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...9, 10

8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ... 11 – 23

9. PRAYER ... 24

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 25

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

1. R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9.

2. Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18].

3. Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160)

4. Ram Chander Mandal Vs.State, 1997IAD(Delhi)1, 1996(39)DRJ363.

5. State of Karnataka v Joseph Rodrigues, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066 and

1239/2004.

6. Manish v. State of M.P, MANU/SC/0246/198: (1987) 3 SCC 80.

7. Jashubha Bharatsinha v state of Gujarat, 7MANU/SC/1561/1994 : (1994) SCC 353.

8. Ravji v. state of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175

9. Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213.

10. Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ 2553.

11. Rajinder v state of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 721.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 & - And
 Act – The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 CR.P.C – Criminal Procedure code, 1973
 AIR – All India Reporter
 Anr – Another
 Art. – Article
 Ed. – Edition
 US – United States
 i.e. – That is
 Ltd. - Limited
 Ors. - Others
 Pvt. – Private
 SC – Supreme Court
 SCC – Supreme Court Cases
 SCR – Supreme Court Report
 SCRL – Supreme Court Rules
 Sec – Section
 V. – Versus
 Vol. – Volume
 viz. –Which is

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

ISDICTION

The Special Leave Petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the final judgement
passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Leebay contending that the offence was heinous in
nature and thus praying life imprisonment of Manish, hence the Special Leave Petition has
been filed by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Supreme Court pursuant to Art.132 1 and Art.
1342 the Constitution of Nyaysthan and both the parties have put their issues before the
Hon’ble supreme court of Nyaysthan.

1
Art. 132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases. (1) An
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of
India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the
case involves a substantial question of law as t the interpretation of this Constitution

(2) Omitted

(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that
any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes of this article, the
expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be
sufficient for the final disposal of the case
2
Art. 134 . Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters. (1) An Appeal shall lie
to the supreme court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the
territory of India if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and
sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or (c) certifies under
Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause
(c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to
such conditions as the High Court may establish or require

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from
any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the purpose of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner
most respectfully submits the facts of the matter as:

 Aarohi a 20 year old girl, belonging to a lower middle class family, was pursuing her
studies in Chartered Accountancy in the City of Leebay. Her father used to work as a
clerk in a private firm and her mother was a house wife. She has always been a very
bright and ambiguous student, To support her father she used to take tuitions for
school students, Akshay her accounts teacher secretly developed emotions for
Aarohi . She had great admiration and respect for Akshay as her teacher. On Aarohi’s
birthday, Akshay organized a party, where he gifted her and expensive watch.
Unaware of the feelings, Aarohi accepted the same.
 On 11th January 2012 Akshay approached Aarohi’s parents and asked for her hand in
marriage. However, they rejected the offer and warned him not to contact her
henceforth as they did not approve of him due to his poor financial and family
background. They asked him not to follow her anymore. Despite the warning
continued to follow her and also tried to contact her personally through phone and
other means. He believed that Aarohi was doing so because she is getting pressurised.
 Aarohi reported the same to her parents. Her parents gave a firm oral ultimatum to
Akshay that if he continued to repeat the unwarranted acts committed by him they
would be force to take an action against him. But, despite the warnings Akshay
continued harassing her and her parents by continuously asking their daughter’s hand
in marriage.
 Enraged, in the feeling of constant rejection Akshay went to Manish and confided in
him the entire situation that transpired between him and Aarohi’s parents. Manish
aged 52 years had always treated Akshay as his son ever since Akshay’s parents died
in car accident in 2006. After Manish heard the entire situation he could visualise the
extent of attachment that Akshay had for Aarohi and felt he was depressed. So, he
suggested that he should find Aarohi alone and take her to the temple and marry her
without informing her parents. If Aarohi resisted from getting married to Akshay,
Manish would threaten her with bottle of acid to pressurize her to get married to
Akshay.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

 Akshay was reluctant initially agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be
caused to Aarohi and the bottle of acid will only be used as a weapon for threatening
her for the compliance of their wishes. On the 3rd March 2012 as per the plan Akshay
& Manish found Aarohi walking alone on the road. On seeing her lone they decided
to get out of their car Akshay approached her and asked her to accompany him to the
temple so that they could get married. On Aarohi’s resistance Manish decided to
threaten her with the bottle of acid, Akshay started dragging her towards the car.
When Aarohi started screaming for help in the moment of panic Akshay started
opened the bottle and threw the acid on her face. Akshay and Manish ran away from
the scene in their car and left Aarohi writing in immense pain. She was taken to the
hospital by some passerby.
 The doctor’s immediately conducted the surgeries on her as the injuries were severe
in nature. A First Information Report was lodged and the statement of Aarohi was
recorded. A case was registered against Akshay and Manish under Sec. 326 (A) R/W
120 (B) of the Nyayasthan Penal Code (NPC) 1860 and Akshay was also charged
with 354 (D) of The NPC . Akshay absconded and was declared as a proclaimed
offender while Manish was arrested by the police from his home and the bottle of acid
and the car used in commission of crime were seized from his possession. After
investigation he was put to trial before the Sessions Court, where he pleaded not
guilty and claimed for a trial. Bail was rejected and Manish was in judicial custody
during the entire trial.
 Session Court in July 2019 convicted Manish under Section 326 R/W 120 B of
Nyaysthan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment
undergone during the trial shall be included in the punishment and was also ordered to
pay compensation to Aarohi to a tune of Rs. 3, 00,000/- to be paid immediately. In the
meantime, there was an increase in the number of acid attack incidents.
 Manish being aggrieved by the Judgement preferred to an appeal to the Leebay High
Court in August 2019 seeking acquittal on the ground that it was Akshay who threw
on Aarohi. The Leebay High Court upheld the conviction of Manish but reduced the
punishment from 15 years to 10 years. Realizing that Manish would be released in
about 12 months Aarohi felt betrayed by the legal system. Aarohi had permanently

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

lost her eyesight. There were permanent scars on her face hands this state propelled
her into depression. Being further dejected by the Leebay High Court Order Aarohi
committed suicide.
 This led to an uproar in the Public and Media. Many Women’s Right Organisation
were outraged across the country. Many candle marches and protests started taking
place all over the country. The National Commission for Women came forward and
filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of Nyaysthan contending that
the offence was of a very heinous nature and thus prayed life imprisonment of
Manish. Subsequently Manish also filed an Appeal against the order of the Leebay
High Court seeking acquittal Supreme Court clubbed both the appeals and has kept
them at the stage of admission and hearing on 15th and 16th February 2020.
 Nyaysthan is a constitutional republic that follows the common law system.
 The Nyaysthan Constitution guarantees the same set of Fundamental Rights to person
as Part III of Indian Constitution.
 Nyaysthan follows a system of trial by judge and not by jury.
 Nyaysthan has adopted the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Nyaysthan has adopted the Nyaysthan Procedure Code, 1973 which is a verbatim
copy of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CR.P.C).
 Nyaysthan has adopted the Nyaysthan Evidence Code, 1872 which is a verbitum copy
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Following issues had been raised for consideration of this Hon’ble court in the instant matter;

1. Whether common intention was present when Akshay and Manish agreed to use acid?
2. Whether acid thrown on Aarohi was in furtherance of the common intention?
3. Whether the actions of Manish were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec
326A R/W Sec.34 IPC and Sec 354 D IPC?
4. Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether common intention was present when Akshay and Manish agreed to use
acid?
1. Common intention was present when Akshay and Manish agreed to use acid and
acid thrown on Aarohi was in furtherance of the common intention.
2 It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Akshay and
Manish from the moment Akshay agreed to Manish’s plan of using acid to force Aarohi to marry him. As
per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention makes each person
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The Hon’ble High Court fails to
take notice of this common intention and the actions by Akshay which were clearly in furtherance of this
common intention.
.B. Whether acid thrown on Aarohi was in furtherance of the common intention?
1. It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between
Akshay and Manish from the moment Akshay agreed to Manish’s plan of using acid to
force Aarohi to marry him.
2. As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
3. The Hon’ble High Court fails to take notice of this common intention and the actions
by Akshay which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.
C. Whether the actions of Akshay were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec
326A R/W Sec.34 IPC and Sec 354 D IPC?
1. It is humbly submitted to this court that Akshay’s actions in connivance with Manish
caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to
grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Akshay and Manish
are punishable by life imprisonment.
2. It is also submitted that Akshay may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known
fact that Akshay had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her
resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of Akshay amount to
stalking.

D. Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

1. It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge
under Sec 366 IPC against Akshay. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing
women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Akshay’s plan and actions clearly had the
intention to forcefully marry Aarohi against her will with coercion.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE

FACT THAT THE COMMON INTENTION WAS PRESENT AS AKSHAY &
MANISH AGREED TO USE THE BOTTLE OF ACIDS IN THEIR PLAN OF
ABDUCTION AND ACID WAS THROWN IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT
COMMON INTENTION.

It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Akshay and
Manish from the moment Akshay agreed to Manish’s plan of using acid to force Aarohi to
marry him. As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone. The Hon’ble HC fails to take notice of this common intention and the actions by
Akshay which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.
Intention is defined in R. v Mohan 1
as "the decision to bring about a prohibited
consequence.”. Intention A range of words represents shades of intention in criminal laws

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

around the world. The mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, is traditionally
expressed as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and
"willfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the jurisdiction in
which the crime was committed and the seriousness of the offense.
The 4 essential elements of an offense are:
Mens Rea (Intention): Mens rea refers to the crime's mental elements of the defendant's
intent. This is a necessary element—that is, the criminal act must be voluntary or purposeful.
Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the defendant's state of mind at the time of
the offense, sometimes called the guilty mind. It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure
origin, "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas" that is translated as "the act is not guilty
unless the mind is guilty."
Actus Rea (Conduct): The actions or the conduct or the execution of malafide intentions is
Actus Rea. Possession
_____________
R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9

Concurrence: In general, mens rea and actus reus must occur at the same time—that is, the
criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way activate the act.

Cause: Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result". That is to say that
causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an
injury.

In the case in hand, all four elements of crime are present without doubt, in furtherance of
that , attention must be drawn to the Common Intention aspect of this case – the test of
intention for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their
actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all
of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the
given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to
continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent
intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. In the given
case, when Manish suggested to Akshay the use of Acid in order to intidate, threaten and
forcefully marry Aarohi – Akshay was fully aware of all the possible and probably

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

consequences of using acid – of which one happened to be causing grevious hurt or even
death of Aarohi. Knowing the possible and probably consequences Akshay agreed to
Manish's plan – this satisfied the test of intention, which was clearly malifide and criminal
in this case.

.B. WHETHER ACID THROWN ON AAROHI WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF

THE COMMON INTENTION?

It is humbly submitted to this court that the fact that Akshay did not resist Manish's plan as
well as stood as a mute witness to Manish's action of throwing acid on Aarohi clearly show
the intention was common and equally malafide. It can be said with certainty that Akshay had
the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim otherwise Akshay would have disagreed of
use to bottle of acid and would have not accompanied Manish to abduct Aarohi with the use
of bottle containing acid. Since the conduct of the accused Akshay whose presence at the
scene of the occurrence stands proven beyond doubt, at the time when Manish was throwing
acid gives sufficient proof that both shared common intention and further Akshay simply
watched to the accused Manish throwing acid on Aarohi neither tried to intervene or save nor
prevented the accused Manish from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused
Akshay had intended to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim. However
keeping in mind the facts that Aarohi had turned down Akshay’s marriage proposal and
further Akshay had accompanied Manish who was carrying the bottle of acid to the scene of
incident, it can be said with certainty that the accused Akshay had the intention to inflict
bodily harm on the victim otherwise accused Akshay would have disagreed of use to bottle of
acid and would have not accompanied the accused Manish to abduct Aarohi with the use of
acid. Since the conduct of the accused Akshay whose presence at the scene of the incident
stands proved beyond doubt, at the time when Manish was throwing acid gives sufficient
indication that both shared common intention and further Akshay simply watched Manish
using acid to cause hurt to Aarohi - he neither tried to intervene or save Aarohi, neither did he
stop Manish from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused Akshay had the
intention to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim. The silence on the part
of Akshay and failure to intervene goes to show that Akshay developed common intention
with the accused Manish of throwing the bottle containing acid. 2 Perpetrators of the crime act
cruelly and deliberately. Acid violence is a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 13

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

the crime carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, carrying it on him and then stalking
the victim before executing the act supporting this act done to be premeditated the Hon'ble
SC in Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 3 has held:--

"No pre mediation or previous meeting of mind is necessary for the applicability of Section
34 of the I.P.C. The existence of common intention can be inferred from the attending
circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties. No direct evidence of common
intention is necessary. For the purposes of common intention even the participation in the
commission of the offence need not be proved in all cases. The common intention can develop
even during the course of an occurrence.”
These facts clearly establish that common intention on the part of both the accused and
section 34. IPC is rightly pressed into service.

________________
2
Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18]
3
2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160)

The togetherness of the two accused at the time at the time of the incident and soon after the
incident clearly establishes their common intention to commit the crime. A question arises
that if there was no common intention why did not Akshay tried to prevent or intervene and
why did he run away along with Manish leaving Aarohi in immense pain?

The only answer to this question is that there was a common intention (which happens to be
essential element 1 of a crime as stated in paragraph III) and their actions on March 24th were
in furtherance of that common intention – completing the essential element 2, 3, 4 for a crime
as stated in paragraph III. of both the accused in the crime. Thus the appellant finds no merit
in the argument that section 34, IPC cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case so as to
convict the appellant as per this case Ram Chander Mandal Vs.State, 4
From the above
circumstances it is crystal clear that they had common intention to commit such heinous
crime. Yes, the act of throwing the acid was clearly a manifestation of the plan and carrying
the acid was an essential and important action plan.

C. AKSHAY’S ACTIONS WERE FIT FOR AWARDING OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT

UNDER SEC 326A R/W SEC 34 IPC AND SEC 354D IPC.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

It is humbly submitted to this court that Akshay’s actions in connivance with Manish
caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to
grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Akshay and Manish
are punishable by life imprisonment. It is also submitted that Akshay may be convicted
under Sec 354D as it is a known fact that Akshay had been following her, contacting her on
phone and internet despite her resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these
actions of Akshay amount to stalking. Acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by
which the perpetrator of the crime seeks to inflict severe physical and mental suffering on
his victim. This kind of violence is often motivated by deep -seated jealousy or feelings of
revenge against an innocent woman. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately.

_____________________

4
1997 IAD (Delhi) 1, 1996(39)DRJ363

The act of using bottle of acid was a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the
crime carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, then carrying it on him and then
stalking the victim before executing the act.

As elaborated upon in above argument – Akshay did not do anything to prevent Manish
from throwing the acid, he stood there watching it while Aarohi suffered. Further so – he
was the won who drove Manish to Aarohi, abducted Aarohi, dragged her and also fled along
with Manish. The fact that Akshay had no sense of remorse or resentment – clearly shows
his malafide intentions and equal participation in throwing of acid on Aarohi.

As per section 34 IPC “ each of such persons is liable for that act in same manner as if it
were by him alone”, this section clearly holds Akshay liable for the act of throwing acid on
Aarohi as argued in argument I paragraph I-VII there was clear common intention between
Manish and Akshay, which makes Akshay equally liable.

Sec 326 IPC deals with offenses in which grievous hurt is caused voluntarily by dangerous
weapons or means, in the given cases sub section A will apply as that specifies Acid as the
means for causing damage, dis-figuration or disability. Sec 326A states that :

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 15

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

'326A. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or
disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by
throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with
the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less
than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
treatment of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.'

The damage caused to Aarohi has been proven beyond doubt to be of grievous nature which
has ruined her life, career and future for her and her family. Aarohi has had to undergo 6
surgeries and 10-15 more surgeries will need to be conducted, Aarohi has lost vision in one
eye, Aarohi has permanent scars on the skin of her hands and face. Aarohi has suffered
physically, emotionally and mentally beyond repair and the suffering can is beyond measure.

In the given case, Akshay clearly caused the most severe degree of damage possible and
deserves the maximum punishment in order to set precedent which will deter others from
abusing and ruing lives of women.

Further, Akshay's action prior to the attack on Aarohi on March 24 th amount to conviction
under sec 354D IPC, which states that -

'354D. (1) Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to
foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such
person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of
electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear
of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the
mental peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that the course of conduct will not amount to stalking if the person who pursued it
shows––

that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the person accused
of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by
the state; or that it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or
requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was
reasonable. Whoever commits the offense of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine.’

Here in this case Akshay proposed to Aarohi for marriage and Aarohi however told him to
speak to her parents. When Akshay approached Aarohi’s parents with the proposal of
marriage, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. Thereafter,
Aarohi started avoiding Akshay and made Akshay clear that she won’t go against her parents
wishes. Despite such disinterest shown by Aarohi and warning by her parents Akshay started
following Aarohi to her tuition classes and even contacted her personally on the phone and
through internet. Here Akshay tried to foster personal interaction with Aarohi against her
will. Akshay's actions clearly fulfils the conditions of offence Stalking under Section 354D
IPC. The appellant submits this court to convict Akshay under S354D IPC and give
maximum punishment of three years to Akshay.

In similar cases where a person threw acid on someone causing great amount of damage and
dispair, the courts have confirmed as well as awarded life in prison to the accused – one such
case is of State of Karnataka vs Joseph Rodrigues 5, where the Karnataka HC confirmed that
such ghastly attacks are punishable by life in prison.

In Manish v. State of M.P 6. reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering death
sentence observed thus: It will be a mockery of Justice to permit the accused the escape the
extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
punishment for the accused would be to render the justice system of this country suspect. The
common man will lose faith in Courts.

In such State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station Vs.Respondent: Joseph Rodrigues S/o
V.Z. Rodrigues, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1239/2004 cases, he understands and
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. Therefore, undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure
such serious threats. The duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the
nature of the offence and the manner in which it urns executed or committed etc. (see Sevak
Perumal v. State of T.N.) . The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal
conduct.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 17

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

In Jashubha Bharatsinha v. State of Gujarat 7

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: The
Courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these
challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving
the avowed defect of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts
would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the
conscience of the society. In the case of Ravji v. State of Rajasthan 8 it is held that it is the
nature and gravity of the crime and not the criminal,

_________________________________
5
State of Karnataka vs Joseph Rodrigues
6
Manish v. State of M.P
7
Jashubha Bharatsinha v. State of Gujarat
8
Ravji v. State of Rajasthan

which art germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court
will be failing in if duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been
committed not only against the individual but also against the society to which the criminal
and the victim belong .

D. PERMISSION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ADD THE CHARGE UNDER SEC 366

IPC.

It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge under
Sec 366 IPC against Akshay. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing
women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Akshay’s plan and actions clearly had
the intention to forcefully marry Aarohi against her will with coercion. This Hon’ble Court
has the power to add or alter any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced under sec
216 CRPC.

Section 366 IPC states that:

‘Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.-- Whoever kidnaps
or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that
she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 18

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means
of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method
of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or
knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another
person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.’

In the given case, it is proven beyond doubt that Akshay wanted to abduct Aarohi and marry
her forcefully. On 24th March Akshay along with Manish executed this plan and found Aarohi
alone and attempted abduction. This clearly proves that the intention to abduct was very
much present. This incident will come under the ambit of Sec 366 as a case of abduction as
Aarohi happened to be eighteen years, whereas kidnapping applies to only minors. This
Hon’ble court held in the case of Khalil-Ur-Rahman and Hazarika v State of Assam that once
the necessary intention of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether or not
the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not in the event the woman
consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse. 9 The given situation is strinkingly similar
to cases cited - though accused did not successfully abducted Aarohi and compel her to marry
against her wishes but accused must be charged under Sec 366 IPC as the intention was clear.
The intention of the accused is the basis and the graveness of an offence under this section.
The violation, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence. The only
bear upon the intent which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of
the accused is the vital question for determining the case. Intention is a matter of inference
from the circumstances of the case and the subsequent conduct of the accused after abduction
has taken place. In order to constitute offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off
illegally by force or deception that is to compel a person by force or deceitful means to
induce to go from one place to another as judged in the case of Rajinder v state of
Maharashtra 10. To constitute the offence under section 366, it is necessary for the prosecution
to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from
any place that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with
the intent that complainant will be compelled to marry. Knowledge on the part of the accused
at the time of abduction or kidnapping that the woman would be compelled to marry against
her will is sufficient to constitue an offence under this section. It is humbly submitted before
the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to add a new charge under Sec 366 IPC in the trial of this
case. As Manish had a intention and knowledge along with Akshay to abduct Aarohi and

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 19

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

forcefully take her to the temple for marrying her without the information to her parents. This
clearly shows that Akshay used force to compel her to accompany him to the temple where
he wanted to marry her. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that Manish has committed the
offence under Sec. 366 of IPC, the same has been overlooked by the competent authority
which framed the initial charges as well as the Hon’ble Sessions Court and later the Hon’ble
High Court.

_________________________________

9
Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213, Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5
SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ 2553
10
Rajinder v state of Maharashtra

PRAYER

Therefore, In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that:

 It is therefore prayed that the life imprisonment may kindly be awarded to Manish.
 It is further prayed that the permission may kindly be adduced to add charge under
Sec. 366 of IPC.
 It is further prayed that the Appeal filed by the Accused may kindly be rejected with
exemplary costs.
 That the Hon’ble Court may please allow the Petitioner to make any amendments in
the prayers and reliefs sought in the present reply or submit additional prayers as and
when required.
 Kindly pass such other suitable orders as may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of
justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for this act of kindness
and justice, the above named Respondent as in duty bound shall ever pray.

The Petitioner additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may make any such order or orders
as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 20

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

And for this act of kindness, the respondent as is duty bound shall ever humbly pray.

All of which is most respectfully submitted on behalf of,

Filed on: ____/_____/2019 The Petitioner

Sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES REFERRED

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 The Constitution of India, 1949
 The Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013

BOOKS REFERRED

 Dr. N. V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (8th Ed)

 Durga Das Basu, Introduction to The Constitution of India (22nd Ed)
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (22nd Ed)
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (35th Ed)

DICTIONARIES & LEXICON

 Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (10 ed. 2014)

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 21

 S.N.B.P. LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT 2019 - 20

 P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary (4 ed. 2012)

INTERNET SOURCES AND DATABASES

 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
 www.lexisnexis.com
 www.livelaw.in

MEMEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 22