Crescent

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2023
BHARAT INSTITUTE OF LAW

TEAM CODE: BIL15
BHARATH INSTITUTION OF LAW
(School of law)
1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before
THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KANDIGAI
BENCH AT KANDIGAI
The Appeal filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C)
Criminal Appeal no: ___________/2023
In the matter of
VARSHINI Appellant
VS
STATE OF KANDIGAI Respondent
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
PRAYER 24

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
S.NO ABBREVIATION EXPLANATION
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. BPC Bhoomi Penal Code
3. BHC British High Court
4. BOM Bombay
5. BOM LR Bombay Law Journal
6. Cri Criminal
7. Cr. C Criminal cases
8. Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code
9. Cri LJ Criminal law Journal
10. Cr cases Criminal cases
11. Guj Gujarat
12. HC High Court
13. IPC Indian Penal Code
14. IT Act Information Technology Act
15. LUCK Lucknow
16. NCERT National council for educational research

and training
17. OCD Obsessive Compulsory Disorder
18. SC Supreme Court
19. SCC Supreme Court Cases
20. S/d Signature

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS:
1. Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).
2. Ragunath alias Ram Singh (1940) 16 Luck 194

3. Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782
4. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843
5. R. v. Cassidy. (1867) 4 BHC (Cr C) 17.
6. State of MP v. Kedar Yadav 2001 (1) SCC (Cri)1008
7. Darbara singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840
8. Shaloo Manjeet Pandey v. State Of U.P Criminal Appeal no. 727 of 2011.
9. Nannhi Bahu (1909) 5 IC 138
10. Narottamdas L. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai, 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 100: 1984
Cri LJ 1790.
11. NCERT V. P.D. Bhatnagar, 1980 Raj Cr Cases 392.
12. Jainarain Singh v. Empero, 1940 SCC OnLine Pat 429: 1940 Cri LJ 814.
13. Chandi charan Dutta v. Bhabataran Dey 1963 SCC OnLine Cal 189: (1964) 2 Cri LJ 85.
14. G.K. Gopalan v. R., 1947 SCC OnLineMad 236: 1949 Cri LJ 258.
15. Phiaz Mohammad, (1903) 5 Bom LR 502.
16. Surendera Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627.
17. Sundra Majhi v. State, 19971 Cut LT 565.

4
STATUTES:
1. Section 66E, IT Act, 2000 ,Act of parliament, 2000.
2. Section 67, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
3. Section 67A, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
4. Section 499, IPC, 1860
5. Section 500, IPC, 1860
6. Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860
7. Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
8. Section 8 , The Indian Evidence Act, Act of Parliament, 1972
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in
3. https://www.manupatra.com
4. https://www.lexisnexis.com/academica
5. https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
6. https://www.scconline.inco.in
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. B.M. GANDHI'S- Indian Penal Code.

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal- Indian Penal code.
3. Law of Evidence – Dr. V. Krishnamachari.
4. Law of Crimes- Dr. S. R.Myneni.
5. Cr.P.C- S.N. MISRA

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant humbly approaches the Hon’ble HC under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 which reads as follows:
Cr.P.C 374:- Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Appeals from convictions
1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years 1 has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the
same trial; may appeal to the High Court.
3. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), any person,-
a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant
Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, or
b. sentenced under section 325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed
under section 360 by any magistrate, may appeal to the court of sessions
The Respondent counsel approached the HC in response to the Petitioner.

6
STATEMENT OF FACT
BACK GROUND:
 The republic of Bhoomi is a peaceful country with the similar laws and customs as
applicable in the country of India. Mr. Velmurugan is an industrialist in the field of
textiles. Rajesh is the second child of Velmurugan hail from the district of Aruvi in the
state of Kandigai and Rajesh is a student of one of the prestigious institution of Bhoomi.
 Varshini is the youngest daughter of Mr. Moorthy and he is a textile industrialist. Though
he is a tough competitor to Mr. Velmurugan, they have known each other more than 30
years and their families share good bond.
 Varshini had completed her under graduation and she moved in with Velmurugan's family
with her family consent for pursue her higher education in Aruvi district. During
Varshini’s stay with Velmurugan's family, she fell in love with Rajesh. She was
obsessively with him. Her professor noticed her changed behaviour. Considering her
welfare Rajesh took her to a psychiatrist who diagnosed her with early stage of Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and prescribed her medication.
 They both kept their relationship a secret form their family. Varshini's friend Venba was
aware of their relationship. Varshini and Rajesh were in the physical relationship. When
Moorthy arrived at Velmurugan's incidence they caught varshini and Rajesh during their
physical relationship their relationship bought a shock to their family varshini was made
to discontinue her studies and was forced to move to her home town. She was agreed to
marry a groom of her parent's choice as she was left with no other options.
 After a couple of years Rajesh married Sangeetha. At the same time varshini got divorced
from her husband. On 08.08.2022 Venba and varshini met Rajesh and Sangeetha.
Varshini gifted a wall clock.
 Facts in issues: One week later, on 15.08.2022 Rajesh was on a business trip to
Mudichur and Sangeetha received a message from an anonymous number which stated
as: ‘Sangeetha your happiness will not last long, divorce your husband if not your photos
will be published on porn site’’. Sangeetha was shocked to see the photos of her private
7
life. On 18.08.2022 at about 9:30 PM Sangeetha received a phone call a male voice
repeated the words that ‘Sangeetha you might have received your photos, divorce your
husband if not you’ll die soon’. She intimated him about the happenings.
 Sangeetha and Rajesh lodge a complaint at D3 Aruvi police station. The investigating
officer found that the call received by Sangeetha was from a public telephone booth
located at Mudichur. During the course of investigation the couple found that they were
expecting a baby. In order to celebrate Sangeetha’s pregnancy on 21.08.2022 Rajesh
arranged a small get-together which comprised of their acquaintances including Varshini
and Venba. When the party was about to start everyone got notification of Sangeetha's
intimate pictures. Everyone including Rajesh tried to search Sangeetha and found
Sangeetha has broken bangles near the pool. He found her droned in the pool
unconsciously she was rescued by Rajesh and admitted in the hospital. A week later
Sangeetha regained her conscious when police came to collect the statement and she
stated that varshini called her near the pool and pushed her. On the investigation it was
found that the anonymous number from which the Sangeetha received the photographs
belonged to the Varshini but there was no clue about the phone call with the male voice.
 Police arrested varshini and during the investigation she hysterically laughed and made a
statement ‘since Sangeetha passed away she need not share Rajesh with anybody
‘unbeknownst the fact that Sangeetha was arrived. During the investigation Varshini was
enraged by the fact that Sangeetha was still alive and yelled that ‘no Rajesh belonged to
me and further stated that "it was me who fixed the camera in wall clock and published
Sangeetha intimate photos to ruin her reputation, since Sangeetha's reputation is ruined
Rajesh will come back to me". Police recorded Varshini’s statement and they also found
camera in Rajesh's bed room. Varshini’s parent’s stated that she has been undergoing
treatment for OCD for couple of years.During the course trial at the session court varshini
denied her charges of attempt to murder, and accepted her obsessions towards Rajesh and
further added that she never had intention to harm Sangeetha as she is pregnant. When
she was further interrogated, she stated that in a drunken state Rajesh expressed his
feelings for her during the small get together and the statement was confirmed by Venba.
she admitted that her obsession for him trigged due to this statement of Rajesh ‘I still love
you as I did before two years ‘
8
ISSUES RAISED
1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF 307

BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506, 509 OF
BPC ACT, 1860 AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF IT ACT 2000?
3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS VALID AND

LEGAL?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF 307

BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?
In the present case, the accused has a clear motive, she called Sangeetha near the
pool by so she prepared to kill Sangeetha, and pull her into the pool. All the 3 stages were
done by the accused. Hence the counsel for the Respondent humbly submits that the
Varshini (accused) is held guilty for the offence u/s of 307 of IPC.
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506, 509
OF BPC ACT, 1860 AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF IT ACT
2000?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that the convictions made by the Session
Court against Varshini is correct within under the Bhoomi Penal Code, 1860 and the IT act 2000.
The council for the respondent humbly submits that Varshini is guilty under defamation,
Criminal intimidation and Modesty of women of Bhoomi Penal Code and under the provisions of
violation of privacy, publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, and
transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form of the IT Act
2000.
3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS VALID

AND LEGAL?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble HC that the punishment imposed by the Session court
against the accused is said to be valid and legal. As the prosecution side argued, the accused is
guilty under the sections 307, 500, 506, 509 of BPC and 66E, 67, 67A of IT Act, 2000. Among
these punishments the court ordered the minimum legal punishment which is 10 years
imprisonment in order to run concurrently and a minimum fine amount of rupees 50000 which
are held legal.
10
ARUGMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER ATTEMPT TO MURDER

BEYOND ALL RESONABLE DOUBTS?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that Varshini (accused) has
committed an offence u/s 307 BPC and should be charged with attempt to murder of
Sangeetha.
For the purpose of constituting an attempt under this section there are two ingredients required,
1. An evil intent or knowledge
2. An act must be done.
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an intention coupled
with some overt act in execution thereof.1 For Conviction under this section it is not necessary
that the accused should complete every stage in the actual offence, except the final stage. It is
enough if in the attempt he did an act towards the commission of the offence.2 The SC reiterated
its earlier view held that the offence under, IPC is committed, when with the intention to commit
murder, the offender does any act or series of act towards the commission of murder. It is not
necessary that the act done must be last for committing murder.3
1.1.Presence of mens rea
The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is having the
intention or knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as explained under
Section 300 of the Code4. Law gives a lot of importance on proving the intention of the accused
there have been some tests to determine the murderous intent of the accused 5. In the present case,
1
Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).
2
Ragunath alias Ram Singh (1940) 16 Luck 194
3
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782
4
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843
5
R. v. Cassidy. (1867) 4 BHC (Cr C) 17.
11
there was the intention coupled with act in executing that intention would suffice. 6 Here the
intention is because Rajesh and Varshini loved each other and in physical relationship. But they
were separated by their parents. After two years Varshini got divorce and moved to Venba house
at Aruvi district. During the get-together, Varshini's obsession to Rajesh is triggered by the
Rajesh statement "I still Love you as I did before 2 years". By this, Sangeetha is the only
disturbance between Rajesh and Varshini. If Sangeetha is not there, Varshini can get Rajesh.
Hence Varshini has a strong motive to kill Sangeetha in order to get back her Ex. "Rajesh".
Motive becomes significant in a case where the circumstantial evidence is involved but not so
when direct evidence is available. 7
1.2.Circumstantial Evidences
According to the section 8 of Indian evidence Act, 1872, chain of relevant fact can be
considered as evidence to conclude the accused is guilty under the crime.
Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act states that Motive, preparation and previous or
subsequent conduct - Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to
such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if
such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was
previous or subsequent thereto8.
According to this section, chain of events can be considered as evidence to held that the accused
guilty under the section 307 of Indian Penal Code. In the case of Shaloo Manjeet Pandey v. State
Of U.P.9 the chain of events can be considered as prima facie evidence and the conviction of the
appellant is held valid. In the present case as we argued above Varshini has a clear Criminal
intention, she gifted a wall clock in which the camera was found later by the police during
investigation and the phone number from which intimate photos of Sangeetha was received
6
State of MP v. Kedar Yadav 2001 (1) SCC (Cri)1008
7
Darbara singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840
8
Section 8 , The Indian Evidence Act, Act of Parliament, 1972
9
Shaloo Manjeet Pandey v. State Of U.P Criminal Appeal no. 727 of 2011.
12
belongs to Varshini and the message which threaten Sangeetha to divorce her husband was also
belong to Varshini, Varshini also present there at the time of incident. Her emotions are triggered
by the sentence made by Rajesh at that instance which was evident by Venba. In order to achieve
this, Varshini prepared to kill Sangeetha. Varshini called her near the pool and pull her into the
pool. The Commission of a crime involves four stages, namely
 Intention
 Preparation
 Attempt
 Accomplishment
Here in the present case, varshini has an intention to kill Sangeetha, as we argued above, to kill
Sangeetha, Varshini called her near the pool and made an attempt to kill her. In order to convict a
person under the attempt to murder, the accused have to commit the three stages of the Crime
except the final stage. Here the accused has a clear motive, she called Sangeetha near the pool by
so she prepared to kill Sangeetha, and pull her into the pool. All the 3 stages of crime were done
by the accused.
1.3.The act is capable of causing death
It is humbly submitted that the element of Actus Reus was present in the act of the
accused. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.
If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death. It is not
correct to acquit an accused of the charge under 307 merely because of the injuries inflicted on
the victim were in the nature of simple hurt. In the present case, Varshini pushed Sangeetha into
the pool. As Sangeetha was pregnant it caused her unconscious and she admitted in ICU. In the
case of Nannhi Bahu10 it was held that the accused in the course of a quarrel with her sister in
law and in a fit of anger, flung her child, 3 years old, into a pond for 4 feet deep on the edge of
which her house was situated, it was held that the circumstances gave rise to a presumption that
her intention of the accused was to cause death of the child, and that she was, therefore guilty of
an offence under the section of 307 of IPC. In the present case also, the court may presume that
10
Nannhi Bahu (1909) 5 IC 138
13
her intention of the accused was to cause death to Sangeetha, therefore Varshini was guilty under
attempt to murder of Sangeetha.
Hence the counsel for the Respondent humbly submits that the Varshini (accused)
is held guilty for the offence u/s of 307 of IPC.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506, 509
OF BPC ACT, 1860 AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF IT ACT
2000?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC that the convictions made by the Session
Court against Varshini is correct within under the Bhoomi Penal Code, 1860 and the IT act 2000.
The council for the respondent humbly submits that Varshini is guilty under defamation,
Criminal intimidation and Modesty of women of Bhoomi Penal Code and under the provisions of
violation of privacy, publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, and
transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form of the IT Act
2000.
2.1.GUILTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, 2000
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble High court, the convictions made by the
session court under the provisions of IT Act of 66E, 67 and 67A is correct with it. The accused is
guilty under these provisions of the act of insulting the privacy of a woman in the public through
the electronic instruments.
2.1.1. Guilty under 66E of IT Act
The accused is guilty under the provision of 66E of IT Act, for the violation of privacy of the
victim Sangeetha.

14
The Section 66E of IT Act states, that whoever intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or
transmits the image of a private area of a person without his or her consent, under these
circumstances the person is punishable. 11
(a) ‘Transmit’ means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a
person or persons.
(b) ‘capture’, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any
means;
(c) ‘Private area’ means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or
female breast.
(d) ‘Publishes’ means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for
public.
The accused fixed the camera in the wall clock, which was presented by her. The Wall-
clock was fixed in the bedroom of Sangeetha and Rajesh. It was found by police during
investigation. According to section 27 of Indian Evidence act, when an information given by the
accused while he is in police custody leads to the discovery of an incriminating material object,
that portion of the information can be proved under section 27. In the present case, during police
investigation, the accused admitted that "it was me who fixed the camera in the wall clock".
Following this statement police seized the camera from the wall clock which is admissible as
evidence. From this it was clear that Varshini was the person who fixed the camera and took the
intimate photos of Sangeetha. Hence Varshini is guilty under the provisions of 66E of
Information Technology Act, 2000.
2.1.2. Guilty under the section 67 of IT Act
The Accused is guilty under this section for the transmission of information which is obscene in
electronic form.
This section states that, whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted
in the electric form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its
11
Section 66E , IT Act,2000 ,Act of parliament, 2000.
15
effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances.12
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that Varshini is guilty under this section because
the mobile number from which the obscene image is received by Sangeetha belongs to Varshini
and it was found by Cyber Crime. Hence it was clear that Varshini is the person who transmits
the obscene images to Sangeetha through electronic form.
2.1.3. Guilty under the section 67A of IT Act
The accused is guilty under this section for the publishing the material containing of sexually
explicit act in electronic form.
This section states that, whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted
in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act 13. This section ensures
the guilty of the accused for the transmission of sexually explicit images in an electronic form by
sending the obscene pictures of the victim Sangeetha. So the accused is guilty under the section
67A of IT Act, 2000.
2.2.Guilty under defamation (500):
The act of the accused is said to be a defamatory act which satisfies the section 499 of penal code
with essential ingredients.
Section 499 of IPC states that – Defamation – Whoever by visible representation makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm the reputation of such person
to defame that person.14
Section 500 of IPC states that - Punishment for defamation — whoever defames another shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.15
12
Section 67, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
13
Section 67A, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
14
Section 499, IPC, 1860
15
Section 500, IPC, 1860
16
The ingredients of defamation are present in the act of the accused and the accused have an
intention to harm Sangeetha’s personal reputation and also captures photographs of Sangeetha
personal life. The essentials of the defamatory act are as follows,
This section has three essentials:
(a) Making or publishing16 any imputation concerning any person.

(b) The imputation must have been made: (i) by words, either spoken or intended to be read; or
(ii) by signs, or (iii) by visible representations.
(c) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or
having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it
is made. 17
These essentials are present in the act of the accused, that she has the intention to harm the social
and personal reputation of Sangeetha. That the accused have a clear obsession with Rajesh
(Sangeetha‘s husband). The accused made a defamatory act in order to harm Sangeetha's
Reputation. The intimate pictures of Sangeetha which was get notified by the people who were at
the get-together of Sangeetha’s pregnancy celebration on 21.08.2022. Those intimate photos are
taken from the camera fixed by the accused. Hence the accused is considered as the maker of
such defamation. Imputations on a person’s character lower her reputation in the eyes of others
and this is consider being harm. 18 In the present case, the accused has a criminal intention to
defame Sangeetha and the intimate photos published are captured by Varshini. Hence the counsel
for the respondent humbly submits that the accused is guilty under defamation.
2.3.GUILTY UNDER THE CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION (506):
The accused is charged under the provisions of Criminal intimidation under Section 506
of IPC.
The Section 506 of IPC states that - Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits,
the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
16
Narottamdas L. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai, 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 100: 1984 Cri LJ 1790.
17
NCERT V. P.D. Bhatnagar, 1980 Raj Cr Cases 392.
18
Jainarain Singh v. Empero, 1940 SCC OnLine Pat 429: 1940 Cri LJ 814.
17
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death
or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to
impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.19
In order to convict any person under this section, the following ingredients must be fulfilled. The
essentials to prove Criminal Intimidation are as follows,
When committed, A person commits criminal intimidation if he/she:
(A) Threats another with any injury to his
(i) Person,
(ii) Reputation, or
(iii) Property, or to
(iv) The person or reputation of anyone in whom that the person is interested,
(B) With intent:
(i) To cause alarm to the person, or
(ii) To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
(iii) To omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threats.
Ingredients
The section consists of two important ingredients:
(i) Threatening a person with injury
19
Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
18
(ii) The threats must be done with intent
In the case of Chandi charan Dutta v. Bhabataran Dey20 it was held that the threat may be direct
or indirect and it must be done with the intention21 expressed with it. In the present case, the
threat was direct and the treat is done with intention. Varshini had send the message that
"Sangeetha your happiness will last long, divorce your husband if not your photos will be
published on porn sites, have fun with photos". This act of varshini was done with intention to
cause alarm and to direct Sangeetha to divorce his husband. This Act of Varshini had fulfilled all
the essentials of ingredients to convict the accused under this section. Hence the Counsel for the
respondent humbly submits that the accused Varshini is guilty under the section 506 of BPC.
2.4. GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 509:
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble High court that the accused is charged under the
section 509 for insulting a woman by publishing the private pictures of the victim Sangeetha to
the public. This kind of act of the accused is punishable under this section. The act accused have
an intention to exhibits object (privacy pictures of Sangeetha) insulting the modesty of the victim
and intruding upon her privacy.
The section 509 of IPC states that - A word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a
woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes
sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that
such gesture or object shall been seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such
woman shall be punishable under this section. 22
There are some ingredients that make clear about the convictions under this section
Ingredients
This section makes it clear that there must be, first of all, intention to insult the modesty of a
woman23.
20
Chandi charan Dutta v. Bhabataran Dey 1963 SCC OnLine Cal 189: (1964) 2 Cri LJ 85.
21
G.K. Gopalan v. R., 1947 SCC OnLineMad 236: 1949 Cri LJ 258.
22
Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860
23
Phiaz Mohammad, (1903) 5 Bom LR 502.
19
The insult may be offered:
A. (i) by uttering any words or
(ii) By making any sounds or gesture, or
(iii) By exhibiting any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that gesture
or object shall be seen by such woman; or
B. By intruding upon the privacy of such woman.
These are essentials that can make a conviction under the section 509 that ensures the guilty of
the accused of insulting of the modesty of Sangeetha by intruding up on the privacy of such
women. This section presupposes the existence of a woman and the accused must act with the
intention to insult her modesty. In the present case, the modesty of Sangeetha is insulted by the
Varshini. Therefore the counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the accused is guilty
under the section 509 for the insulting the modesty of a Sangeetha.
Therefore the counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the accused is guilty under
the sections 500, 506, 509 of BPC, 1860 and under the provisions 66E, 67, 67A of IT Act 2000.
3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS VALID

AND LEGAL?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble HC that the punishment imposed by the
Session court against the accused is said to be valid and legal.
3.1. THE PUNISHMENT BY THE SESSION COURT
The Session Court rejected sentenced Varshini to 10 years imprisonment and imposed a
fine of Rs.50000.
3.2. SECTIONS UNDER WHICH THE PUNISHMENT IS IMPOSED
As we argued above, the accused is guilty under the sections 307, 500, 506, 509 of BPC
and 66E, 67, 67A of IT Act, 2000.

20
The punishments mentioned in the above said sections are as follows;
1. When a person is held guilty under section 307 of IPC the court may impose
punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to 10
years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
years or with fine or both.
year or fine or both.
5. When a person is held guilty under section 66E of IT Act, 2000 the court may impose
years or with fine which may extend to five lakhs rupees or with both
6. When a person is held guilty under section 67 of IT Act, 2000 the court may impose
years and with fine which may extend to 5 lakhs.
7. When a person is held guilty under section 67A of IT Act, 2000 the court may impose
years with fine which may extent to 10 lakhs.
Among these punishments the court ordered the minimum legal punishment which is 10 years
imprisonment in order to run concurrently and a minimum fine amount of rupees 50000 which
are held legal.

21
3.3. Insanity can't be a defense:
During the trial in the Session Court, the accused pleaded insanity as a defense, as the
accused is suffering from the disease called OCD but the Session court rejected her plea. In case
of murder, where the accused relied on the general exception of unsoundness of mind under the
Section 84 of IPC, the SC held that the burden of lies on the accused to prove the unsoundness of
mind as the presumption under law is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the
natural consequences of his act, although the burden is on the accused, but however he is not
required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubts, but merely satisfy the preponderance of
probabilities.24 As the accused is suffering from a disorder known as OCD which makes an
excessive thought that lead to repetitive behaviour is characterised by unreasonable thoughts and
fears that leads to compulsive behaviour, this type of condition is a controllable one. This kind of
disorder can be controlled by the treatment and requires medical diagnosis. These are the
treatment provided to a person who is suffering from the obsessive compulsory disorder. It is
evident from the statement provided by the parents of the accused that she was undergoing for
the treatment of OCD for couple of years. When the accused is undergoing for treatment, then
her thoughts are controllable. Then Varshini got divorced from his husband only on the reason
that lack of understanding between the couple not on the ground that she was insane. Insanity is
the more strong ground for divorce but it was not used. From this it was clear that during the
marriage life of Varshini, her thoughts are controlled and she was not insane. The acts of the
accused were conducted in different incidents from gifting the wall clock with the hidden camera
to make an attempt to murder Sangeetha are well planned and done with Criminal intention.
Being insane one may do a crime not a series of crimes. These series of crimes done by the
accused itself proves that the accused is not insane. The M'Naghten rule lays down two tests for
criminal liability:
 Firstly, did the offender know the nature of the act?

 Secondly, did he know that it was either wrong or contrary to law?
In the present case, firstly, the accused (Varshini) had done all the offences which are
pre-planned and executed with a very strong motive to separate Rajesh and Sangeetha and with a
criminal intention to defame and to kill Sangeetha. Secondly, the prosecution discharging its
24
Surendera Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2011 SC 627.
22
burden in the face of the plea of legal insanity has merely to prove the basic fact and rely upon
the normal presumption of law that everyone knows the law and the nature consecution of his
act25. By planning these crimes, it was clear that the accused was in the stable state of mind and
does not suffer from any mental illness. Hence the Court needs not to accept insanity as a private
defense to escape from this crime.
3.4. Admissibility of Evidences:
In the case of attempt to murder, the prosecution has proved the circumstantial evidences
against the accused and the accused done the act with the motive to separate Rajesh and
Sangeetha and with the criminal intention to murder Sangeetha. Hence the prosecution has
established the presence of mens rea beyond all reasonable doubts.
In the case defamation, Criminal intimidation and cyber crimes, the prosecution has
submitted the report of Cyber cell which states that the intimated photos received by Sangeetha
from the anonymous number is belonged to Varshini which is said to be admissible.
Therefore the Counsel for the respondent humbly prays that the punishment imposed by the trial
court is valid and legal.
25
Sundra Majhi v. State, 19971 Cut LT 565.
23
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities sited, may this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the Appeal petition filled by the appellant.

2. Declare and adjudge that the accused (varshini) is guilty of offences charged under
the sections 307, 500, 509, 506 of IPC and 66E, 67 and 67A of IT Act, 2000.
3. Uphold the convictions of the Hon'ble Sessions Court.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully prayed
Place: State of Kandigai s/d----------------------
Date: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

24

Crescent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crescent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION -2023

BHARAT INSTITUTE OF LAW

BHARATH INSTITUTION OF LAW

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KANDIGAI

Criminal Appeal no: ___________/2023

STATE OF KANDIGAI Respondent

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

S.NO ABBREVIATION EXPLANATION

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. BPC Bhoomi Penal Code

3. BHC British High Court

5. BOM LR Bombay Law Journal

7. Cr. C Criminal cases

8. Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code

9. Cri LJ Criminal law Journal

10. Cr cases Criminal cases

11. Guj Gujarat

12. HC High Court

13. IPC Indian Penal Code

14. IT Act Information Technology Act

15. LUCK Lucknow

16. NCERT National council for educational research

17. OCD Obsessive Compulsory Disorder

18. SC Supreme Court

19. SCC Supreme Court Cases

20. S/d Signature

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

1. Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).

2. Ragunath alias Ram Singh (1940) 16 Luck 194

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

1. B.M. GANDHI'S- Indian Penal Code.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

Cr.P.C 374:- Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Appeals from convictions

The Respondent counsel approached the HC in response to the Petitioner.

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF 307

3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS VALID AND

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF 307

3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS VALID

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER ATTEMPT TO MURDER

1. An evil intent or knowledge

2. An act must be done.

1.1.Presence of mens rea

1.3.The act is capable of causing death

2.1.GUILTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, 2000

2.1.1. Guilty under 66E of IT Act

Memorandum on behalf of Respondent

2.1.2. Guilty under the section 67 of IT Act

2.1.3. Guilty under the section 67A of IT Act

2.2.Guilty under defamation (500):

This section has three essentials:

(a) Making or publishing16 any imputation concerning any person.

2.3.GUILTY UNDER THE CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION (506):

When committed, A person commits criminal intimidation if he/she:

(A) Threats another with any injury to his

(B) With intent:

(i) To cause alarm to the person, or

The section consists of two important ingredients:

(i) Threatening a person with injury