IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIVA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Saman Adhikar (NGO) & Accused Person Family Members
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of Republic of Indiva & Concern Police Officers
...Respondents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Republic of Indivia before this Hon'ble Supreme Court
alleging violation of fundamental rights. This Hon'ble Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
In January 2020, four men were arrested for the alleged gang rape and
murder of a young advocate named Shrishti in the Republic of Indiva.
The arrest was based on CCTV footage and investigation.
2. Shrishti, a dedicated lawyer who worked for the less fortunate,
encountered the four men while helping them on the side of the road
when her scooter broke down. However, they took advantage of her
kindness and assaulted her. In an attempt to escape, they raped her and
then set her on fire, resulting in her tragic death.
3. The police started their investigation and arrested the four accused. The
news of this horrific incident sparked protests and demands for justice
across the country, with many people demanding swift action.
4. The accused were being transported to court when, according to the
police, two of them managed to grab guns from the officers and fired
shots. The police, fearing their escape, responded by shooting the
accused, leading to their deaths. While some hailed the police's actions
as an act of bravery, others, including the families of the accused and
human rights groups, alleged that it was an extra-judicial killing.
5. An NGO named "Saman Adhikar" filed a petition before the High Court
of Ankara, which ruled that the police had no other option but to take
 the action they did. The families of the accused have approached the
Supreme Court, seeking a murder case against the police officers
involved.
6. The case has raised questions about the use of force by the police and
allegations of human rights violations, and it now awaits a decision by
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indiva.
In The laws of the State of Republic of Indiva are in pari materia with the
laws of India.This statement suggests that the legal framework and
legislation in the State of Republic of Indiva closely mirror or are
consistent with the laws in India. It implies that the state's legal system
is aligned with the broader legal framework of the country, ensuring that
state laws are in harmony with the national legal standards.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the alleged encounter was extra-judicial killing amounting to
violation of Article 21 rights?
2. Whether the fundamental rights of the accused were violated by
denying them fair trial and due process?
3. Is the argument made by the police, claiming self-defense and an
imminent threat to life, valid and reasonable?

ARGUMENTS

1. On Issue No.1: Whether the alleged encounter was extra-judicial killing

amounting to violation of Article 21 rights?
It is humbly submitted that the alleged encounter killing of the four accused by
the police officials is clearly an extra-judicial killing done while the accused
were in police custody. As held in a catena of judgments, including Prakash
Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,
such encounter killings are prima facie violations of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that the police
cannot assume the role of judges and executioners. By taking law into their
own hands and deliberately killing the undertrials before any trial, the police
officials have committed cold-blooded murder violating the most basic right to
life under Article 21.

3. On Issue No. 3: Whether the fundamental rights of the accused were

violated by denying them fair trial and due process?
It is humbly submitted that the summary execution of the accused persons
before any trial grossly violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
procedure established by law under Article 21 implies a fair and just
procedure. This includes the unalienable right to fair trial, which is the very
foundation of rule of law and basic postulate of criminal jurisprudence.
By denying the accused any trial at all and executing them summarily, the
police have violated the Maneka Gandhi guidelines and extinguished all their
procedural rights. The right to life cannot be suspended even for undertrials
involved in heinous crimes. They are entitled to due process and legal
remedies under Article 21.

4. On Issue No. 4: Is the argument made by the police, claiming self-

defense and an imminent threat to life, valid and reasonable?
It is most respectfully submitted that the plea of exercise of right of private
defence and imminent threat to life under Section 100 IPC taken by the police
is wholly untenable, unsubstantiated and a mere afterthought to cover-up the
brazen extra-judicial killings.
The accused were unarmed prisoners, handcuffed and outnumbered by armed
police. There was no question of any imminent threat to life of police
personnel. The plea of self defence has been concocted as a facile justification
for the deliberate murders. It is shocking that such a flimsy plea is being
advanced for depriving citizens of their most basic right to life and deserves to
be rejected outright.
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare
the encounter killings as extra-judicial murders violating Article 21 rights and
order further investigation. The extra-judicial executions cannot be tolerated in
a civilized society governed by rule of law.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Declare the encounter killing as unlawful, unconstitutional and
violation of Article 21 rights;
b) Order fair investigation and action against police personnel
involved;
c) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice