Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

TEAM CODE:
TEAM CODE: DL
CODE- DL 074
DL-074
074
1ST SHRI R.K. PANDEY MEMORIAL
NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Under Article 136 of Constitution of India
IN THE MATTER OF
Raghav………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER
VS.
State of Uttar Pradesh……………….……………………………………..RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 9
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................................... 12
SUMARRY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................ 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 15
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?........................................................................... 15
1.1 THE AGGRIEVED PARTY HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI. ...................................... 15
1.2(a) THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS VALIDITY BY ARBITRATION AND BREACHES

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ..................................................................... 16
1.2(b) NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ..................... 16
1.2(c) NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE. . 17
2.WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

PROPERLY APPRECIATE EVIDENCES PRODUCED ON RECORD? ..................... 18
2.1 ORAL EVIDENCES ANS STATEMENT OF WITNESS IS REIABLE AND

TRUSTWORTHY................................................................................................................ 18
2.2 DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR................................................................................. 19
2.3 CORROBORATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND ORAL EVIDENCE WITH THE

TESTIMONY OF VICTIM. ................................................................................................ 20
2.4 MEDICAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND VIOLATED

VICTIMS RIGHT TO PRIVCY, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY. ............................................................................................................................ 21
Page | 2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSION COURT AND HIGH COURT ON THE
GROUND OF MERE PRESENCE CAN BE GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL IS VALID
OR NOT? ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.1 WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR SEEKING
ACQUITTAL. ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 THERE MUST BE INTENTION TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACT. ............................ 23
3.3 THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST RAGHAV FOR

COMMISSION OF AN ILLEGAL ACT. ........................................................................... 23
3.4 THE SENTENCE AWARDED BY HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED. ...................... 24
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 25

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
All Allahabad High Court
Art. Article
Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Del. Delhi
DLR Delhi Law Review
DLT Delhi Law Times
Edn. Edition
Guj. Gujarat
H.P. Himachal Pradesh
Hon’ble Honorable
ILR Indian Law Reports
IO Investigation Officer
IPC Indian Penal Code
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
NCT National Capital Territory
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
U.P. Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under Section
UOI Union of India
v. versus
W.r.t With Respect To

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
❖ Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955

❖ Udai Chand v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1978
❖ State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC
❖ Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
❖ Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., AIR 1986
❖ Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., AIR 1999
❖ M.P. Jain- Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis- 8th Edition.
❖ Pritam Singh v. The State
❖ ShivanandGauri Shankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, AIR 2008
❖ P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors., AIR 1980
❖ Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees
❖ Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 (SC)
❖ State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 (SC)
❖ State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash mital AIR 1992 2045, 1992 SCR (2) 815
❖ State of U.P. v. Desh Raj 2006(SC)
❖ State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, AIR 2005 Cr LJ 4375 (SC)
❖ Joseph v. State of Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 197
❖ State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 5 SCC 30
❖ Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. (2010) 1 Cr LJ 517 (SC)
❖ State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622
❖ Rafique v. State of U.P.
❖ Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987
BOOKS
❖ Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing, 2019.

❖ D.D. Basu- Introduction to the Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis- 22nd Edition.
❖ M.P. Jain- Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis- 8th Edition.
❖ Dr. J.N. Pandey- Constitutional law of India.
❖ Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes- A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.

❖ Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes- A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
❖ S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code with The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018.
❖ K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code- 7th Edition.
❖ R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure (Sixth edition 2016).
❖ Principle of the law of evidence, Edition 24 Reprint 2020 Dr. Avtar Singh.
❖ Batuk lal, The law of Evidence, Central Law Agency.
STATUTES
❖ Indian Penal Code, 1860.

❖ The Constitution of India, 1949.
❖ Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
❖ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
LEGAL DATABASES
❖ Indian Kanoon
❖ Manupatra
❖ SCC Online
❖ Law Times Journal

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The Respondent reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court. The Article 136 of Constitution of India reads as hereunder:
“136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.
(1) Notwithstanding Anything In This Chapter, The Supreme Court May, In Its Discretion,
Grant Special Leave To Appeal from Any Judgment, Decree, Determination, Sentence Or
Order In Any Cause Or Matter Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal In The Territory
Of India
(2) Nothing In Clause (1) Shall Apply To Any Judgment, Determination, Sentence Or Order
Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal Constituted By Or Under Any Law Relating To
The Armed Forces.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. ‘X’ The Victim whose Date of Birth according to matriculation certificate is

01.01.2002, along with her Mother, Sarita Devi and 2 younger brothers lived in a village
named Ghaila, District Lucknow. The father of the victim had died 4 years ago and the
victim along with her mother took care of daily expenses of the family.
2. Raghav the accused who is also a relative to the victim lived at some distance from the
victim’s house, with his father Radhe Lal, mother Reema Devi and a younger sister
Pooja. As per records the age of the accused is about 18 years and 6 months.
3. There was a dispute between both the families regarding a property for which, a civil
suit was pending in the city civil court, Lucknow.
STATEMENT OF VICTIM
4. Victim stated that on the night of 14.08.2019 as soon as she reached the field adjacent
to Gomti river to ease herself, someone forcibly held her from back and dragged her
towards the sarpat and committed the heinous crime of rape on her. When she tried to
raise an alarm, the assaulter threatened her with dire consequences. Due to dark she was
unable to identify the face of person who committed the crime. But at a moment when
the victim started weeping the accused got scared and ran away from the crime scene
in a naked position leaving his pant and towel there. The victim was scared in such a
manner that she didn’t told anyone about this but on 24.08.2019 when the mother of
the victim asked her about her behavior then she uttered everything about that night and
also told her that she got scared that’s why she didn’t disclosed about this to anyone.
FIR AND INVESTIGATION
5. On 28.09.2019 victim’s mother Sarita Devi lodged a FIR against Raghav as a suspect.
She also mentioned that Raghav used to tease the prosecutrix on many earlier occasions.
6. On 28.09.2019 at 5:00 p.m. the victim was sent for a medical examination in District
Women Hospital, Lucknow. According to the medical report there was no injury on her
body or on her private part and there was no bleeding or redness or tenderness and no

discharge was present. Hymen was old torn and no bleeding was present and no redness
or congestion, no tenderness also the vagina admitted two fingers easily. The size of
uterus was also found normal. A radiological test on the victim took place according to
which the age of the prosecutrix is about 18 years.
7. Raghav who was arrested on the same day told the investigation officer that he left his
pant and towel at crime scene, which after the inspection was found at the same place
as stated by the accused Raghav. The cloths were sent to forensic science lab.
According to the forensic report there was no presence of spermatozoa on clothes.
WITNESSES
8. According to the statement of prime witnesses-

i. Mr. Jung Bahadur who was in the nearby field in his statement mentioned that
“around 8:20 p.m. in the light of torch I saw Raghav running towards his home
in naked position”.
ii. Gauri, victim’s classmate in her statement mentioned that “someday in month
of May this year Raghav came to school during lunch time. He threatened the
victim that if she did not marry him, she would have to face the consequences”.
STATEMENT OF PARTIES U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
9. On 2.09.2019 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the statement of prosecutrix was recorded. In
her statement she stated that Raghav used to follow her, forcibly hold her hands. She
also told that Raghav use to love her and want to marry her.
10. Prosecutrix mentioned that in May 2019, Raghav came to her school and asked her to
run away with him and if she did not follow his request then she have to bear the
consequences. Further she also mentioned that the accused has raped her 3 months
before this.
11. Raghav in his statement denied the allegation of rape and also stated that he loved the
victim and wanted to marry him. He also stated that on evening of 13.09.2019, she
asked me to meet her in cattle grazing field adjacent to river next day at 8:00 p.m. and
whatever happened, happened with her consent. On 14.08.2019 when I met her, she
voluntarily went with me inside the sarpat but as soon as I took off my clothes, she
started shouting and crying for help. I got scared and ran away leaving my clothes.
12. On 05.09.2019 the statement of victim was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in front of
magistrate where she didn’t mention about the rape which took place 3 months before.

When the magistrate arises the question on this then the victim said that she had given
statement of rape on earlier occasion by mistake and Raghav had not raped her 3 months
back but only teased her.
13. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed u/s 376 and sec. 506 of IPC.
Raghav denied all the charges and claimed to be tried.
14. Raghav approached Allahabad HC u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet. The
court observed that “At this stage, it can’t be said that no prima-facie offence is made
out against the petitioner. The impugned charge sheet does not call for any
interference”.
15. To prove its case prosecution examined PW-1, Sarita Devi, PW-2, the victim, PW-3,
Dr. Parwati Singh, who medically examined the victim, PW-4, Jung Bahadur, PW-5
S.I. Rajeev Chaudhary, the investigation officer and PW-6 Gauri, victim classmate. The
accused was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. where he again denied all the allegations.
16. After appreciating the evidences on record, convicted Raghav on 02.03.2020 and
following sentences were imposed on him:
i. 10 Years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 376(1) IPC.
ii. 2 Years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- u/s 506(2) IPC.
17. On 18.03.2020 Raghav filed an appeal along with suspension of sentence before
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. On 30.07.2020 HC suspended his bail and
released him on bail during pendency of his appeal.
18. The division bench of High Court on 05.02.2021 dismissed the appeal and the appellant
was taken into custody. Aggrieved by the judgement of High Court, Raghav has filed
an appeal against conviction before Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES RAISED

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

PROPERLY APPRECIATE EVIDENCES PRODUCED ON RECORD?
3. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSION COURT AND HIGH COURT ON

THE GROUND OF MERE PRESENCE CAN BE GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL
IS VALID OR NOT?

SUMARRY OF ARGUMENTS

It is most respectfully and humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
the instant petition is not maintainable, as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial
justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be
maintainable. It will not be granted if there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice
is done.
In the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on pure
question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial question of
law is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial nature has been occasioned.
The petitioner contends that in the present case no exceptional and special circumstances exist
and substantial justice has already been done. The appellant must show that exceptional and
special circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice
will be done to the appellant
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the witness saw the accused
fleeing from the crime scene in a naked form around 8:20 Pm which was the precise time of
incidence. PW2- Gauri, she stated that Raghav came to school during our lunch time. He
seemed to be very angry, he threatened the victim that if she did not marry him, she would have
to face the consequences and left.
In the present case there is 2 weeks of delay in lodging the FIR. The attack on the prosecution
cases on the ground of delay of lodging FIR has almost begged down as a stereotyped
redundancy in criminal cases. It should be remembered that law has not fixed any time for
lodging the FIR. Hence a delay in FIR is not illegal of course a prompt and immediate lodging
given the prosecution a twin advantage.

Justifying the conviction of trial court based on the ocular, documentary evidences, witnesses
and the most important the testimony of the victim are the available sources on record which
have been considered fully by the trial court.
OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has declared
Raghav as the accused in the light of the heinous acts committed by them. This order of
conviction of the Raghav accused has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court.
The Hon’ble High Court raised the sentence of Raghav convicted. This order of conviction
passed by the Sessions Court and the sentence increased by the High Court are well justified.
In the present case it is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the
Honorable High Court is a reasoned decision. The hon. court has said that to prove a case of
rape in court it is not necessary to prove sexual assault medically as well. The medical evidence
in such cases is not a pre-requisite, it upheld the conviction of a man in a case where the victim’s
hymen was found to be intact.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of India that the instant
petition is not maintainable, as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has
been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. It will
not be granted if there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done. Article 136
does not give a right to a party to appeal to SC rather it confers wide discretionary power on
the SC to interfere in suitable case1. Honorable SC stated that when Special Leave is obtained
by making false and misleading statement of material fact. The hon. Court will be justified in
revoking the leave to appeal2.
Also, in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based
on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial
question of law is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial nature has been
occasioned3.
The Hon. Supreme Court, however, does not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters liberally.
It does so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist, substantial and grave
injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against, or there has been a departure from legal
procedure such as vitiates the whole trial, or if the findings of fact “were such as shocking” to
the judicial conscience of the Court.
1.1 THE AGGRIEVED PARTY HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI.

Locus Standi means the legal capacity to sue or approach courts. Under both the inquisitorial
and adversarial system, the parties approaching the courts must have been aggrieved or
deprived of their rights. Thus, in any legal process, the existence of locus standi is necessary.
One of the leading cases which played a crucial role in influencing the Parliament to enact the
Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 20134. In this case, a social activist was gang-raped for
1
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955
2
Udai Chand v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1978
3
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC
4
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

vengeance. All the accused were acquitted by the trial court. The state applied for a petition to
the Supreme court under the name Vishakha. The court laid down the guidelines to follow in
workplaces to prevent sexual harassment.
1.2(a) THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS VALIDITY BY ARBITRATION AND BREACHES

THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
In that situation arising where the hon. High Court shown to have completely failed in
appreciating the true procedure and its findings are erroneous preserve and result is according
to the due procedure of law.
In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an illegality or an
irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice resulting in the absence
of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the SC does not permit a third review of evidence
with regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated and
assessed the evidence with regard to such questions5. It is contended that this court is not bound
to go into the merits and even if it were to do so, and declare the law or point out the error, still
it may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts doesn’t require interference or if it feels
that the relief could be molded in a different fashion6.
1.2(b) NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
The petitioner contends that in the present case no exceptional and special circumstances exist
and substantial justice has already been done. The appellant must show that exceptional and
special circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice
will be done to the appellant7. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under
Art. 136. Special Leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when
substantial justice is done, though the decision suffers from some legal errors.
The only uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances in that
Court should grant Special Leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are
shown to exist8.
The court shall interfere with the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or
grave injustice or other recognized grounds are made out, it was also observed that, it is not
5
Union of India v. Rajeswari & Co., AIR 1986
6
Raghunath G. Pauhale v. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co., AIR 1999
7
M.P. Jain- Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis- 8th Edition.
8
Pritam Singh v. The State

possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this
Court under Art. 1369. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally, has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and only in special and extraordinary situations. Article
136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to the SC rather it confers a wide discretionary
power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases 10. In the present case the appellants have been
unsuccessful to show any exceptional and special circumstances which exist. The appellant is
convicted of a heinous offence and this petition filed by the appellant is a mere vexatious
attempt by him. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
1.2(c) NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE.

It is contended by the respondent that no substantial question of law is involved in the present
case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed.
This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be applied in
determining the question of those principles the question would not be a substantial question
of law. It might involve question of law but not ‘substantial’ question of law. The present case
does not involve such ‘substantial’ question of law.
The very conferment of the discretionary power defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of
power. The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional
circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision
sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience11. This overriding and
exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised sparingly and only
the furtherance of cause of justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional cases only when special
circumstances are shown to exist.
9
ShivanandGauri Shankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, AIR 2008
10
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors., AIR 1980
11
Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees

2.WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

2.1 ORAL EVIDENCES ANS STATEMENT OF WITNESS IS REIABLE AND
TRUSTWORTHY
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the following evidences
have been presented during proceeding in trial court.
PW4- Jung Bahadur
The witness saw the accused fleeing from the crime scene in a naked form around 8:20 p.m.
which was the precise time of incidence.
PW6- Gauri (Classmate of victim)
She stated that Raghav came to school during our lunch time. He seemed to be very angry, he
threatened the victim that if she did not marry him, she would have to face the consequences
and left.
The statement of PW1 and PW2 are considered to circumstantial evidence. The statement
recorded under, section 161 of Cr.P.C the victim stated that as soon as she reached the field
someone held her from back and dragged her to the sarpat and committed the crime.
Supporting the statement of victim, the following circumstantial evidences were discovered
from the place of occurrence-
• The pant and towel of the accused which itself proves that he was present there at the
time of incidence. Also, the same was admitted by the accused about the where being
of his clothing during investigation.
• Then at the same time near about the time of incidence the prime witness Jung Bahadur
was present at the crime scene and saw the accused fleeing from the field during 8:20
p.m. in naked position with only his underwear on.
• The statement of victim was supported by the second witness Gauri who was the
classmate of victim. As stated by Gauri, Raghav came to school during lunch time and
he was very angry. He threatened the victim that if she did not marry him she would
have to face consequences and left, which freshly states that the motive of accused was
to humiliate and make her life worse by committing such act to teach her a lesson as to
satisfy his male ego.

2.2 DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR.

There is 2 weeks of delay in lodging the FIR in the present matter. The attack on the prosecution
cases on the ground of delay of lodging FIR has almost begged down as a stereotyped
redundancy in criminal cases12. It should be remembered that law has not fixed any time for
lodging the FIR. Hence a delay in FIR is not illegal of course a prompt and immediate lodging
given the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the
investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it implies out opportunity for any possible
concoction of a false version barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR is not an
unreserved guarantee for the geniusness of the version incorporated therein. The police apathy
and village women’s endeavor, social condition of complainant can be taken into account while
considering delay in lodging FIR.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case held that in our opinion, there was no delay in lodging of FIR
either and if at all there was some delay, the same has not been explained by the prosecution
but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also natural13. The court cannot overlook the
fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons
particularly the reluctances of the prosecutrix as her family members to go to the police and
complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honor of
her family. Therefore, in rape cases delay in lodging FIR is not of much significances. Taking
the reference of following represented I would like to drag the attention of court towards few
points.
• He and her mother were the only support and, in this case, they didn’t have any male
guardian so it would have been more challenging for the duo to file the FIR at first
instance.
• The threat given by the accused to the prosecutrix after the incidence would have
shaken her self-esteem and confidence resulting into giving second thought to the
decision of lodging of FIR which would have taken few days for the duo to analyze
their decision.
12
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 (SC)
13
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 (SC)

2.3 CORROBORATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND ORAL EVIDENCE WITH

THE TESTIMONY OF VICTIM.
a) Corroboration of the statement of Jung Bahadur and circumstantial evidence-
Jung Bahadur as stated sighted Raghav at 8:20 p.m. at the place of occurrence in a naked
position and the accused was running towards his house. During the investigation Raghav
himself told the police about the cloths, which police recovered from the place of occurrence
which definitely shows the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence.
b) Corroboration of the statement of PW-6 (Gauri), PW-1 (Sarita Devi) with the victim
PW-2-
PW-6, PW-1 in their statement mentioned clearly about the Raghav’s mischievous act of
following and keeping an evil eye and he used to treat her on various occasions to be ready for
the evil consequence which she would face instead she has to marry him. PW-2 the victim
herself stated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C that Raghav used to follow me back to home from
my school. At many times he had forcibly tried to hold my hand.
Therefore, under Sec. 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 make identification of proper accused as
sighted by Jung Bahadur confirms thereby the identity of accused. Under Sec. 59 which
provides that all facts, except the content of document, as electronic records, may be proved by
oral evidence. Also, under Section 60 which provides that oral evidences must be direct in all
cases.
The sole conviction shall be based on oral evidence and circumstantial evidence, in this case
under section 59 & 60 of Indian Evidence Act. As sometimes it is very difficult to get direct
evidences, in such cases the court rely on circumstantial evidence. They provide evidence from
the surrounding circumstances of the cases. While appreciating circumstantial evidence
following points must be kept in mind14.
14
State of U.P. v. Ravindra Prakash mital AIR 1992 2045, 1992 SCR (2) 815

• The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully established.
• Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
• The circumstances to moral certainty, exclude the possibility of any person other than
the accused.
Supreme Court while setting aside the acquittal of accused the Supreme Court held that
although it was a case of last seen as such was based on circumstantial evidence but the court
held that the circumstances clearly point to the guilt of the accused, the conviction of accused
under Section 302/376 was held proper15. According to the Section 27 of evidence act only that
much of information which relates distinctly to the facts discovered is admissible. The
information provided by the accused about the whereabouts of his cloths which he wore at the
night of offence have been discovered thus totally proving the identification. The statement of
prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence no further corroboration or
examination of doctor or doctors report is fatal16.
Thereby justifying the conviction of trial court based on the ocular, documentary evidences,
witnesses and the most important the testimony of the victim are the available sources on record
which have been considered fully by the trial court.
2.4 MEDICAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND

VIOLATED VICTIMS RIGHT TO PRIVCY, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INTEGRITY
AND DIGNITY.
Injuries on the person of a rape victim is not even a sine quo non for proving the charges of
rape17. Absence of injuries on person is not necessarily an evidence of falsity or consent on the
part of prosecutrix18. No offence of rape is made ou since hymen of the prosecutrix was found
to be intact is not tenable19. In a case it was held that circumstances such as absence of
spermatozoa on the vaginal slide and absence of injuries on the male organ is not always fatal
to the prosecution20.
The two-finger test and its interpretation violate the right of rape survivor to privacy, physical
and mental integrity and dignity thus this test even if report is affirmative cannot ipso facto
give rise to also reference to past sexual history was banned in rape trials in 2003 proviso was
15
State of U.P. v. Desh Raj 2006(SC)
16
State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, AIR 2005 Cr LJ 4375 (SC)
17
Joseph v. State of Kerala (2000) 5 SCC 197
18
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 5 SCC 30
19
Wahid Khan v. State of M.P. (2010) 1 Cr LJ 517 (SC)
20
State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh (1993) 2 SCC 622

added to section 146 of the Indian evidence act section 155 of evidence act does not allow a
rape victims credibility to be compromised on the ground that she is of generally immoral
character.

OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Sessions Court has declared
Raghav as the accused in the light of the heinous acts committed by them. This order of
conviction of the Raghav accused has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court.
The Hon’ble High Court raised the sentence of Raghav convicted. This order of conviction
passed by the Sessions Court and the sentence increased by the High Court are well justified.
3.1 WHETHER MERE PRESENCE CAN BE THE ONLY GROUND FOR SEEKING
ACQUITTAL.
It is contented before this honorable Court that the decision passed by the Honorable High
Court is a reasoned decision. Also, it is further contended that Raghav was not charged merely
on the ground of presence alone, following reasons were given by the honorable Court:
• Raghav were well aware of circumstances and consequences of their delinquent acts.
• Raghav were capax of committing the crime.
• The case was proved beyond reasonable doubts.
3.2 THERE MUST BE INTENTION TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACT.

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon. Supreme court for the commission
of criminal act there must be two elements of crime-
• Men's Rea (Mental act)

• Actus Reus (Physical Act)
And both the elements were present in this case. As per the fact of this case both the accused
and the victim live in same area and accused usually misbehave and threatened the victim. As
per the facts there was Civil Dispute between both the families and they were the pattidars.
3.3 THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST RAGHAV FOR

COMMISSION OF AN ILLEGAL ACT.
The hon. court has said that to prove a case of rape in court it is not necessary to prove sexual
assault medically as well. The medical evidence in such cases is not a pre-requisite, it upheld
the conviction of a man in a case where the victim’s hymen was found to be intact. The court
said adding that absence of injuries does not lead to the inference that no rape was committed.

A middle-aged Bal sewika was raped by the appellant when she was sleeping in a girl's College.
The next day she narrated the incidence to the mukhya sewika of the village and the appellant
was convicted even in the absence of injuries on the person of the victim 21. The absence of
injuries on back of prosecutrix does not make prosecution case disbelievable22.
The Rule of corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence23 . Where the
testimony of the prosecutrix was corroborated by Material evidence and the first information
report, the conviction of assured u/s. 376 is justified.
3.4 THE SENTENCE AWARDED BY HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED.

The increasing of the sentence the accused in the present case by the Hon’ble High court was
a justified act. The Hon’ble High Court opined that the evidences revealed that Raghav the
accused were well aware of the circumstances of their delinquent acts. Also, the case had been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
21
Rafique v. State of U.P.
22
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987
23
Imrat Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1987

PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:
1. Dismiss this Special Leave Petition.
2. Hold that the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court and the Hon’ble High
Court is correct.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial On Behalf of Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE:

1ST SHRI R.K. PANDEY MEMORIAL

NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Under Article 136 of Constitution of India

State of Uttar Pradesh……………….……………………………………..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 15

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

1.1 THE AGGRIEVED PARTY HAVE THE LOCUS STANDI. ...................................... 15

1.2(a) THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS VALIDITY BY ARBITRATION AND BREACHES

1.2(b) NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

1.2(c) NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE. . 17

2.WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

2.1 ORAL EVIDENCES ANS STATEMENT OF WITNESS IS REIABLE AND

2.2 DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR................................................................................. 19

2.3 CORROBORATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND ORAL EVIDENCE WITH THE

2.4 MEDICAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND VIOLATED

Page | 2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3.2 THERE MUST BE INTENTION TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACT. ............................ 23

3.3 THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST RAGHAV FOR

3.4 THE SENTENCE AWARDED BY HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED. ...................... 24

Page | 3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

All Allahabad High Court

Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter

CBI Central Bureau of Investigation

Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

DLR Delhi Law Review

DLT Delhi Law Times

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

NCT National Capital Territory

SLP Special Leave Petition

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

Page | 4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

u/s Under Section

UOI Union of India

W.r.t With Respect To

Page | 5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

❖ Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955

❖ Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing, 2019.

Page | 6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

❖ Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Page | 7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

“136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Page | 8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. ‘X’ The Victim whose Date of Birth according to matriculation certificate is

FIR AND INVESTIGATION

Page | 9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

8. According to the statement of prime witnesses-

STATEMENT OF PARTIES U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

Page | 10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page | 11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO

3. WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE SESSION COURT AND HIGH COURT ON