IN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF REPUBLIC OF INDIVA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2023

In the matter of:
Saman Adhikar (NGO) & Accused Family Members
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of Republic of Indiva & Concern Police Officers.
...Respondents
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
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 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. The deceased victim, Ms. Shrishti, was an ambitious young lawyer who often worked late
hours and travelled alone at night on her scooter.

3. On the night of 17th January 2020, the victim stopped on a highway to help four unknown
men who claimed one of their friends was injured. This was around 9:30 pm.

4. Upon realizing her phone was in her scooter, the victim returned to find her scooter tyre
punctured. She called her sister at 9:35 pm to inform her scooter had broken down and she
was alone on the road.

5. The four unknown men, the accused in this case, then approached the victim and assaulted
her sexually. They subsequently poured petrol on her and set her on fire leading to her
death.

6. On 18th January 2020, the partially burnt body of the victim was found by a farmer at 6 am
who alerted the police.

7. Upon investigation, the police arrested the four accused - Javed, Rajesh, Naveen and Keshav
based on CCTV footage on 23rd January 2020.

8. While being taken to court on 3rd February 2020, the police claim that two of the accused
snatched the guns of the constables and tried to flee, leading the police to open fire on all
four accused killing them.

9. The families of the deceased accused allege this was an extra-judicial killing and the scene
was staged by the police.
10. An NGO filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging violation of human rights and
fundamental rights. The High Court held the police action as valid.
 11. The families of the deceased accused and the NGO have now approached the Supreme
Court against the High Court order. The matters have been clubbed by the Supreme Court.

12. The defendant in this case is the State which argues the police action was valid and no rights
were violated.

13. The laws of the State of Republic of Indiva are in pari materia with the laws of India. Republic
of Indiva's legal framework is designed to align with the broader legal system of India, and it
encompasses various cultural and historical aspects, emphasizing equality and justice. The
legal system in Republic of Indiva, like the rest of India, seeks to uphold the principles and
values enshrined in the Indian legal framework while addressing the unique cultural and
social context of Republic of Indiva. The legal case and its proceedings are subject to the
laws and regulations of the Republic of Indiva, which are harmonized with Indian law.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the police action of shooting the accused amounts to extra-judicial killing?

2. Whether the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 were violated?

3. Did the police have any other practical choices given the situation?

ARGUMENTS
1. On Issue No.1: Whether the police action of shooting the accused amounts to
extra-judicial killing?
It is submitted that the police action cannot be termed as extra-judicial killing as it was exercised in
furtherance of the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
Supreme Court has laid down guidelines permitting exercise of such right by police personnel where
there is reasonable apprehension that the accused may escape police custody.

In the present case, two of the accused had already snatched revolvers and fired shots in the air.
There was imminent threat of the accused fleeing which required the police personnel to react
immediately. Hence, it was a lawful exercise of right of private defence under Section 100 IPC and
not an extra-judicial killing. Reliance is placed on State of UP v. Ram Swarup (1975) and Prafull Desai
v. State of Maharashtra (2003).

2. On Issue No. 2: Whether the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21
were violated?
It is submitted that Article 21 rights under the Constitution of India are not absolute and persons
accused of heinous crimes like rape and murder cannot seek refuge under it to justify escape from
lawful custody.
The police action was not pre-planned or malicious but was only to prevent the accused from fleeing
custody under imminent threat of such escape. The right to life under Article 21 cannot be
interpreted to protect fleeing undertrials so as to obstruct the course of justice, especially when
their own actions created the circumstances.

3. On Issue No. : Did the police have any other practical choices given the situation?
The argument is that the police had no alternative but to use their right to self-defense (as per
Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code) in that situation. They believed there was a real risk that the
suspect would escape, so they had to act quickly. Given the seriousness of the accused person's
crimes (Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC) and the strong public sentiment surrounding the case, any
delay by the police would have led to widespread criticism and loss of trust. The lack of time and the
immediate threat meant that the police had no choice but to use force to prevent the suspect from
getting away.

PRAYER
In light of the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Dismiss the present petition as being bereft of merits;
b) Uphold the action of the police personnel in exercise of their right of private
defence under Section 100 IPC in the facts and circumstances;
c) Declare that the fundamental rights of the accused persons under Article 21
were not violated as their lives were extinguished in accordance with
procedure established by law while preventing their escape;
d) Hold that the plea of imminent threat and lack of viable options taken by the
police is valid and tenable;
e) Declare that the police action cannot be termed as extra-judicial killings
warranting any further investigation or action;
f) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience;