6 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023: in The Matter of

TC - 105
6th AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2023
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO._______ OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

SABKA ADHIKAR & ORS. …….…………………………………….PETITIONER
v.
THE STATE OF KARJAAT ……..…………………………….…..…RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ______ OF 2023
UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
-Memorial for the Petitioners-

6th AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………..……….....1
TABLE OF ABREVIATIONS…………………………..………..…………..2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………….…….4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………….6
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………….....7
ISSUES RAISED……………………….……………………………………....9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………..10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………...12
1. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused

persons?
2. Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?
3. Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?
4. Whether the Police can be accused of murder?
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………30
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SNO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
1. % Percentage
2. AFSPA Air Force Special Powers Act
3. AIR All India Report
4. Anr. Another
5. Art. Article
6. CCTV Closed Circuit Television
7. CPC Civil Procedural Code
8. CrPC Criminal Procedural Code
9. Hon’ble Honourable
10. i.e In essence / that is
11. IPC Indian Penal Code
12. J. Justice
13. Ltd. Limited
14. M/s Messrs
15. Mr. Mister
16. Ms. Miss
17. NGO Non-Governmental Organization
18. NHRC National Human Rights Commission
19. Ors. Others
20. p. Page
21. Para Paragraph

22. PIB Press Information Bureau
23. PIL Public Interest Litigation
24. PO Police Officer
25. PUCL People's Union for Civil Liberties
26. Pvt. Private
27. S. Section
28. SCC Supreme Court cases
29. SCR Supreme Court reports
30. Smt. Shrimati or Shreemati
31. SLP Special Leave Petition
32. u/a Under Article
33. u/s Under Section
34. UDHR Universal Declaration of Human
35. UOI Union of India
36. UP Uttar Pradesh
37. US United States
38. v. versus
39. WP Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
v CASES REFFERED
S. NO CASE PAGE NO.

1) A.V. Bellarmin v. Mr. V. Santhkumaran Nair 13
2) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India & Ors 13
3) D.K. Basu v. The State of West Bengal 23,28
4) EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. 29
5) Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. UOI & 16
Anr.
6) Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 24
7) Khatri & Ors. v. State of Bihar 28
8) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 17
9) Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 21
10) OM Prakash v. State of Jharkhand 23,27
11) Prakash Kadam & Etc. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr. 27,29
12) PUCL & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 13,15,24,27
13) State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi 21
14) Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors 20
15) Zulfikar Nassir & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 28

v STATUTE REFERRED:
1) The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
2) The Constitution of India, 1950
3) The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
4) The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
5) The Indian Penal Code, 1860
6) The Information Technology Act, 2000
7) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
8) The Newspapers (Incitement to offenses) Act, 1908
9) The Official Secrets Act, 1923
10) The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977
11) The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
12) The Press Council Act, 1978
13) The Radio, Television and Video Cassette Recorders Sets (Exemption from
Licensing Requirements) Rules, 1997
14) The Representation of the People Act, 1951
15) The Telegraph Act, 1885
16) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
v PROVISIONS USED:
1) Art. 39-A of the Constitution of India, 1950
2) Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950
3) Art. 19 of the Constitution of India,1950
10) Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
11) Sec. 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 171-4, 295-A,300, 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
12) Sec. 123, 125, 127-A of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners respectfully submits this memorandum before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indiana as it has the original jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
present writ petitions together by virtue of Article 32 & 136 of the Constitution of
Indiana.
Article 32 of the Kesi Constitution is produced as follows:

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by Law empower any other Court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ).
(4) The right guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.
Article 136 of the Kesi Constitution is produced as follows:

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
1) On 18th January 2023 partially burnt body was found at an underpass on the Karjaat-
Saanchi National Highway by a farmer, around 6:00 a.m. Thereafter, Police was
informed by the sarpanch of the village. After further investigation and body-
identification it was found that the body was of young practicing Advocate Pooja.
2) It was known then that on 17th January 2023 Pooja was returning from her workplace
around 9:30 p.m. While she was on her way to her home, she noticed 4 men
desperately asking for help as one of their friends was lying injured at a distance. She
accompanied them to the same but half way realized that she left her phone in the
scooty so she went back. On her return she found out that her two-wheeler was
punctured, so around 9:35 p.m. she called her sister Nancy to inform about the same
and that she was all alone on the road.
3) It is alleged that the two men who had asked for help accompanied by two other men
eve-teased her because of which she slapped one of them due to the impropriety done
by them. To which out of anger they dragged her and raped her one by one and then
burnt her alive by pouring petroleum all over her body. Thereafter, ran towards a
nearby village.
4) It is to be noted that the CCTV footage discovered by the Police from Highway showed
some faces where the recording time showed around 10:00 pm. Based on which they
started investigating about the 4 men.
5) Soon based on their investigation on 23rd January,2023 they arrested Akram, Ramesh,
Suneel, Maadhav. In meantime, as soon as the news went viral, social media trial
started and hashtags like #JusticeforPooja and #KilltheRapist were trending across all
social media platforms.
6) Even before they could be presented before the bench for pleadings they were killed in
the encounter when they were on their way to the court on 3rd February 2023. Police
officials excused this encounter for the fact that the accused tried to run away by
snatching constable’s pistol.
7) Human rights group claimed it to be as an extra-judicial killing. In Police Press
Conference that followed questions as to how two of the four accused managed to get
hold of the pistols in the presence of 10 Armed Police Officers went unanswered. The

families of the four accused persons also alleged that the Police Officers have framed
the murder scene as they had threatened them when they went to the Police Station.
The families informed the reporters that the Police Officers angrily made the statement
to the families that the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire
Nation was against their act.
8) The NGO named “Sabka Adhikar” filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon’ble
High Court of Karjaat, where they got no luck as the High Court in its judgement
found the act of Police as an “Act of Bravery”.
9) Dissatisfied with the judgement of the High Court, families of the accused filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution and the NGO posed its contention
on the violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights through a SLP, hence
approached the Supreme Court for the same.
10) The present matter in hand have been clubbed by the Supreme Court considering its
urgency.

ISSUES RAISED
A. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights

of accused persons?
B. Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?
C. Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?
D. Whether the Police can be accused of murder?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused

persons?
The Petitioners humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that there
has been infringement of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Art. 14, Art. 21 and Art.
22 of the Constitution of Indiana and Human Rights enshrined under Art. 12-35 of the
Indiana Constitution of accused persons. Furthermore, it is submitted that they have
been denied opportunity for fair trial given under Art. 39-A of the Indiana Constitution
as the 4 accused persons have been extra-judicially executed by the Police Officers.
2) Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?

The Petitioners humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that there
was media trial against the 4 accused persons and the restrictions imposed on Art.
19(1)(2) of the Indiana Constitution have not been adhered to. It is submitted
furthermore, that there has been Contempt of Court given u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
3) Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?

The Petitioners humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the
Police should be accused of extra-judicial execution as they have violated Right to Life
of the accused persons which is non-negotiable and not imposed to reasonable
restriction which is enshrined under Art. 21 of the Indiana Constitution. It is submitted
furthermore, that the Police has also violated Art. 14 of Indiana Constitution which talks
about fair trial which has been taken away by extra-judiciously executing the 4 accused
persons by the Police.

4) Whether the Police can be accused of murder?

The Petitioners humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the
Police should be accused of murder given under Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 as the act committed by them coincides with the essentials given u/s 300 of
the Indian Penal Code,1860 which talks about intention to kill and knowing of the fact
that their act will result in the death of 4 accused persons. It is submitted furthermore,
that the Police officials have extra-judiciously executed the 4 accused persons in a fake
encounter as they had no answers as to how the 4 accused persons got hold of the guns
while they were handcuffed and in the custody of well-trained Police Officers.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused

persons?
1.1 Violation of Fundamental Rights
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the jurisdiction vested
in this Court is exercisable only for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part
III of the Constitution. Where there is no question of the enforcement of a Fundamental right,
Article 32 has no application. In the present case there is a prima facie violation of fundamental
rights of the people on behalf of whom this particular petition is filed. So, the court has the
jurisdiction to entertain the instant Petition u/a 32 of Indiana Constitution.
Justice Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others1 stated that “It is
clear on the plain language of clause (1) of Article 32 that whenever there is a violation of a
fundamental right any one can move to the Supreme Court for enforcement of such
fundamental right. Of course, the Court would not, in exercise of its discretion, intervene at the
instance of a meddlesome interloper or busy body and would ordinarily insist that only a person
whose fundamental right is violated should be allowed to actives the court, but there is no fetter
upon the power of the court to entertain a proceeding initiated by any person other than the one
whose fundamental right is violated”
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Republic of Indiana that in the present case
the fundamental rights of the Petitioner contained in Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 have
been violated by the Respondents as the accused persons were killed without any trial taking
their Right to Life and Right to be treated equally. That the police officials have become hero
in the public domain as they have killed the rapists but no one including the investigating
agency like police has right to punish any accused without due process of law. The Court alone
after applying all the procedure and law and affording an opportunity all the right of free and
fair trial and hearing can impose punishment of imprisonment or death sentence.
1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Others,1984 SCC (3) 161

But in the present instances the police officials have exceeded their powers and stepped in the
premises under the umbrella of the Fundamental Rights. The police officers by fake encounter
of the accused persons or by providing the ‘so-called justice’ in their opinion has taken the
right to life and liberty and prevented the accused from being tried in the court of law which
has taken their Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indiana
Constitution.
In the opinion of Madras High Court in the case of A.V.Bellarmin v. Mr.V.Santhakumaran

Nair 2, the court held as under:
“66.Free and Fair Investigation and Trial is enshrined in Article 14, 21 and 39-A of the
Constitution of India. It is the duty of the state to ensure that every citizen of the country
should have the free and fair investigation and trial. The preamble and the constitution
are compulsive and not facultative, in that free access to the form of justice is integral to
the core right to equality, regarded as a basic feature of our Constitution. Therefore, such
a right is a constitutional right as well as a fundamental right. Such a right cannot be
confined only to the accused but also to the victim depending upon the facts of the case.
Therefore, such a right is not only a constitutional right but also a human right. Any
procedure which comes in a way of a party in getting a fair trial would in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Further, the police officers have taken away the right to life of the accused persons and has
violated the basic principle of Natural Justice which is “Audi Alteram Partem” which means
“no man should be condemned unheard” both of which have been well established in Article
21 of Indiana Constitution.
That this Hon’ble Court in the case of “PUCL & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors”3 has
held and observed that;
“7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees “right to live with human dignity”.
Any violation of human rights is viewed seriously by this Court as right to life is the most
precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The guarantee by Article 21
is available to every person and even the State has no authority to violate that right.
2 A.V.Bellarmin v. Mr.V.Santhakumaran Nair ,(2015) 4 LW 443.

3 PUCL & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors ,(1997) 3 SCC 433

11. In some of the countries when a police firearms officer is involved in a shooting, there
are strict guidelines and procedures in place to ensure that what has happened is
thoroughly investigated. In India, unfortunately, such structured guidelines and
procedures are not in place where police is involved in shooting and death of the subject
occurs in such shooting. We are of the opinion that it is the constitutional duty of this
Court to put in place certain guidelines adherence to which would help in bringing to
justice the perpetrators of the crime who take law in their own hands.
16. Article 21 of the Constitution provides “no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. This Court has
stated time and again that Article 21 confers sacred and cherished right under the
Constitution which cannot be violated, except according to procedure established by law.
Article 21 guarantees personal liberty to every single person in the country which
includes the right to live with human dignity.”
1.2 Violation of Human Rights
Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not
granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the
most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to
food, education, work, health, and liberty.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly
in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally
protected. These Human Rights are well incorporated in Indiana Constitution in its part-III by
way of providing Fundamental Rights.
The Illegal act of fake encounter of accused persons by the police officers infringed the
following Human rights of the accused persons:
a. Right to Life (Article 21)

b. No Torture and inhumane Treatment
c. Right to be treated fair by the court
d. Right to fair trial

e. Innocent until proven Guilty.
The right to life has been infringed by way of extra-judicial killing of the accused persons by
taking law into their own hands despite of other remedies being available. It is humbly
submitted that the action of police officers of shooting the accused persons directly on such
body part which results into death describes the inhumane treatment done with them based on
conjectures and surmise. Further, the accused persons completely had the right to be tried
before the court and it should have been left in the hands of the court to decide upon the guilt
on the part of the accused but rather the accused persons were killed before commencement of
any such trial. This took their right to fair trial. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Karjaat
after hearing all the arguments of the case held that “The Police had no other option but to
shoot the four accused failing to which they would have fled and which would have triggered
mass and widespread agitation throughout the Nation and the role of the Police would have
been in question.” And called the act of police as “Act of Bravery” ignoring the fact that the
questions as to how two of the four accused managed to get hold of the pistols in the presence
of 10 Armed Police Officers went unanswered. This decision of the High court violated the
right to be treated fair by the court. Additionally, the accused were made to be tried by the
“media trial” rather than the actual trial by the court which made them guilty even before they
could prove their innocence. Even the decision of the high court was surmised based on the
results of media trial.
All of this led to the complete infringement of the human rights as well as the fundamental
rights of the accused persons on whose behalf the present petition has been filed.
It has also been averred that the fake encounters are in violation of the fundamental right to
live and that even a criminal is not to be killed without the trial and that if people are to be
killed under the guise of such encounter, then there would be a flagrant violation of the
constitutional guarantee under the Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the claim of the encounters
which are fake in nature by and on behalf of the respondents-police, are rank misuse of powers
and unless and until it will be checked by this Court, lives of citizens will be in total danger
and the liberty, as provided by the Constitution, will also be at stake.
Further, The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also held in the case of People's Union for Civil
Liberties v. The State of Maharashtra & Others4 ;
4 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. The State of Maharashtra & Others ,1999 (4) BomCR 608

“Encounter Killings violate the fundamental rights of criminals as every person has a right to
life and liberty which can only be deprived following the procedure established by law under
Article-21 of the Constitution. This right extends to all persons without exception, including a
fair investigation and trial even if a person is accused of a heinous crime thereby safeguarding
the equality before law under Article 14…
….However, in fake encounters, the police assume the role of the judiciary without giving a
proper chance to the accused to be heard at an appropriate judicial forum, hence violating the
principle of Audi alteram partem. So, it is the responsibility of the police to follow the
constitutional principles and uphold the Right to Life of every individual whether an innocent
law-abiding citizen or a dreaded criminal.”
The victim has a right to justice; the deceased victim and the victim's family have an inalienable
right to know the truth; the people have a right to know whether the rule of law was followed
or not by functionaries and instrumentalities of the State. Any abuse of authority or excessive
use of power by agents of the State poses a grave threat to the constitutionally guaranteed right
to life and liberty of all persons which are deeply wedded to the supremacy of the rule of law.
Accountability is the bedrock on which the rule of law is built. Agents of the state, particularly
men in uniform who are vested with the legal authority to use force, must scrupulously adhere
to the law and any departure from the same must be subjected to scrutiny, interrogation and
adjudication. If seeking the truth does not lead to an investigation and accountability, then the
entire exercise may be rendered illusory and redundant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its
celebrated judgment dated 08.07.2016 in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families
Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India and Anr 5 , has explained this by holding:
“It is necessary to know the truth so that the law is tempered with justice. The exercise
for knowing the truth mandates ascertaining whether fake encounters or extra-judicial
executions have taken place and if so, who are the perpetrators of the human rights
violations and how can the next of kin be commiserated with and what further steps ought
to be taken, if any.”
Thus, the petitioners hold the locus standi to file the present SLP on behalf of the
accused/deceased persons for a flagrant breach of their Fundamental as well as Human Rights
enshrined rightly by the Indiana Constitution in its basic structure providing it an immense
5 Extra
Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v. Union of India and Anr, W.P. (CRL.) 129
of 2012

position. Extrajudicial killings violate fundamental rights of the accused persons like Article
14 which provides the Right to Equality, Article 21 which provides the right to life and personal
liberty, Article 22 which protects against arrest and detention are being violated in cases of
extrajudicial killings. Articles 21 provide that every individual has the right to life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law, extrajudicial killings is not the
procedure established by law to take the life of a person. People have the right to a fair trial
and proper investigation. There are provisions of natural justice in our judiciary system that
provide that no party should be left unheard and the court cannot decide the matter or a person
guilty without hearing the accused person. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial after their arrest
but extrajudicial killings discard the person from this right. Indiana follows the principles like
'Innocent until proven guilty’ 6 and thus, the present petition must be allowed for providing
protection of such rights and principles.
6 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597

2) Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?
The Petitioners humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that there has
been media trial against the 4 accused persons in the instant matter. It is pertinent to note the
point no. 5 and point no. 6 of the fact sheet, which can be reproduced as:
“……..In the meantime, as soon as the news became viral, people all over the country
started protesting and the news became trending all over Social Media and people
demanded ‘Justice for Pooja’. People from various political background as well as
Film Industry and Media Houses demanded speedy justice and #KillTheRapists became
viral all over the country…….
……Amidst the remand period, the entire country protested with candle light marches
and high-profile personalities also got involved in the protests. Various News Channels
conducted shows related to the 4 men accusing them of Rape and Murder.”
These facts elucidate that there was an on-going hatred that was being spread against the 4
accused persons through press and social media platforms amidst the judicial trial being carried
out which hampered the perspective build against the 4 accused person across the state and
which also influenced the working of the police officers and created a biased treatment towards
them.
The trial by media influenced the working of the Police officers as well, which can be further
elucidated from point no. 8 of the fact sheet, which can be reproduced as:
“The families of the four accused persons also alleged that the Police Officers have
framed the murder scene as they had threatened them when they went to the Police Station.
The families informed the reporters that the Police Officers angrily made the statement to the
families that the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was
against their act.”
At the same time, the "Right to Fair Trial", i.e., a trial uninfluenced by extraneous pressures is
acknowledged as a basic tenet of justice in Indiana. Legal provisions aimed at securing the said
right are contained under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Articles 129 and 215 of
Indian Constitution (Contempt Jurisdiction that is; Power of Supreme Court and High Court to
punish for Contempt of itself respectively). A journalist can be held responsible for contempt
of Court if he publishes anything which prejudices a 'fair trial' that impacts the impartiality of

the Court to decide a cause on its merits, irrespective of the nature of the proceeding whether
civil or criminal.7 Similarly in the instant case,
It is pertinent to note that in the case of Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration)
and Ors, 19968, the Delhi High Court held that no conviction will be based upon the media
report but upon the facts that have been placed on record. It is supposed that the Judge dealing
with the case should be neutral. If the decision is based upon the accepted news items, the
petitioner will insist upon denial of a fair trial because it would cause aspiration on the Judge
of being not neutral. Even if there is less report or no report available, the charge should be
framed on the basis of material available on record.
The counsel understands the freedom of press given under article 19(1) of the Constitution of
Indiana, but various reasonable restrictions have been imposed by the numerous statutes on
this freedom of press and mass media. Some of them are:
1. Restrictions on media Under the Indian Constitution- Clause (2) of Article 19(1) permits
imposition by the law of reasonable restrictions
2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
3. The Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 171-4, 295-A, 499, etc.);
4. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Sections 123, 125, 127-A, etc.);
5. The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986;
6. The Information Technology Act, 2000;
7. The Newspapers (Incitement to offenses) Act, 1908;
8. The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
9. The Telegraph Act, 1885;
10. The Radio, Television and Video Cassette Recorders Sets (Exemption from Licensing
Requirements) Rules, 1997;
11. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
12. The Official Secrets Act, 1923;
13. The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977;
14. The Press Council Act, 1978;
15. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
7 [Right to Privacy in Sting Operations of Media], [http://odisha.gov.in/e-

magazine/Orissareview/2013/may/engpdf/57-61.pdf] [(last visited on 21/08/2023 at 19:19)]
8 Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors ,1996 CriLJ 3944

Art. 19 (1) (2) of the Indiana Constitution can be reproduced as follows-
“(2)Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing
law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be reproduced as follows:
“ Section 2(c) in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever which—
o scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority
of, any court; or
o prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceeding; or
o interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner;”
Sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be reproduced as follows:
“ Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs

or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected,
to defame that person.”
Therefore, according to above-mentioned Art. 19 (1) (2) of the Indiana Constitution and Sec.
2(c) and Sec. 499 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Indian Penal Code,1860
respectively makes it prima facie clear that the media trial was carried out against the 4 accused
persons by the press and social media platforms which have tarnished the image of the 4
accused person and also said to have form false opinion about the 4 accused persons through
conducting shows related to the 4 men accusing them of Rape and Murder.

Further, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, 19979, wherein
the Supreme Court held that a trial by electronic media, press or by way of public agitation is
anti-thesis to the rule of law and can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
10
Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) case further
outlined the dangers of a "media trial". It observed that there existed a serious risk of prejudice
being caused if the media exercised unrestricted and unregulated freedom in so far as carrying
out parallel trial procedures without being held up to any standard. Furthermore, carrying out
a relentless scrutiny of any accused without any definitive exposition by a competent court of
law goes against the rights of the accused as well.
One of the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence is presumption of innocence which is diluted
if a trial without any limitation on its contentions by the media is held prior to the acutal trial
by the court. Thus, the presumption as to innocence of the accused persons in the instant case,
was taken away due to the media trial being held.
Therefore, the petitioners most humbly conclude before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana
through the contentions presented that there had been an on-going media trial against the 4
accused persons which is against the principle of Rule of Law and Natural Justice.
9 State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386

10 Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. A. No. 179 of (2007)

3) Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?
It is humbly submitted by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that
there has been several cases of encounters and extra judicial killings in the State of Indiana,
which have raised concerns about the misuse of power by the police. The Constitution of
Indiana secures the right to life 11 as one of the basic fundamental rights which is provided by
the government to the citizens, and these extra judicial killings is one of the biggest violations
to this right.
In the case presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clearly seen that the police is
trying to take the law in its hands, the law of Indiana is considered to be supreme but some
bodies are trying to dominate the society, the accused were being shot by the police officers
without any acceptable reasoning, they have still left some questions unanswered about, how
did the accused got hold of the pistols in the presence of ten armed police officers. The police
may not have enough resources to conduct thorough Investigations, leading to low conviction
rates. Encounters are seen as an easy way for the police to create a positive image of
maintaining law and order in the area.
The police is being silent in the reasoning of their acts since the start of the case, the officials
stated that they went through the missing cases complaints, the dead body was found before
the completion of 24 hours after which the girl was found missing, and according to the laws
the missing complaint cannot be filed before completion of 24 hours. And the body was found
burnt, the family members just recognized the handbag and the scarf. A sense of question arises
by the statement of the families of the accused where they said that, the police officers gave an
angry statement to them when they met them, and said that ‘the accused stand no chance of
being saved from death as the nation was against their act’.
The State of Indiana is being governed on the strong roots of its laws. Under which every
individual is guaranteed certain basic human rights and liberties, and at the same time, the
individual expects that his/ her rights are being respected. However, sometimes the State
Government, which is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and promoting the
protection of the human rights itself, violates such rights by committing custodial violence or
extra-judicial killings.
11 Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indiana,1950

In the case of D.K Basu v. The state of West Bengal,199612, it was stated that extra judicial
killings violate the dignity of any human being. While India has seen a 15% decline in
encounter killing cases registered in the six years between 2016-’17 and 2021-’22 – till March
2022 – the cases shot up by 69.5% in the last two years. India has registered 813 cases of
encounter killings in the last six years. In the six years since April 2016, Chhattisgarh recorded
the most extrajudicial killing cases at 259, followed by Uttar Pradesh at 110 and Assam with
79. This clearly shows how the accused are being brutally being killed without and legal trials.
Extra judicial killings refer to the killing of the person by the state or its agents, without any
judicial or legal proceedings, and the same have happened in this case, before any legal action
could be taken, the accused were murdered by the officials, and the whole circumstance were
covered under the name of encounter. The accused were killed without any trial, any due
process and no legal jurisdiction.
Supreme Court in the case of OM Prakash v. State of Jharkhand 13, held that the police is not
allowed to kill anybody just because the person is a criminal. Our constitution pride right to
fair trial understand Article 14 of the Constitution but the officials take the laws in their hand
and violate the concept of Rule of Law, upon which the whole Constitution works , the police
officials are just responsible for the execution of laws in the state, they are not allowed to
interfere in the matters of judiciary and by performing several encounters they tend to take the
entire power in their hand. They are often carried out by law enforcement agencies or security
forces in the name of maintaining law and order.
Similarly, in the present case the four accused were not even given a chance for pleading their
innocence, in the name of securing peace in the society they were killed, and further it was
encouraged by giving it the name of the “act of bravery”.
Some police officials believe that using violence and torture is the only way to control crime
and create a sense of fear among potential criminals. This same was seen in a case where the
official poured harmful acid in the eyes of the accused which lead to loss of their sight, to which
the Court stated some guidelines for the behaviour with the accused in custody. The accused
were also treated as if they were guilty, the officials forget the difference between being guilty
and being accused for something, and find themselves in a position where they are allowed to
treat the accused in any way that they wish to, there inappropriate behaviour can be sensed, by
12 D.K Basu v. The state of West Bengal,1996, 1997 (1) SCC 416
13 OM Prakash v. State of Jharkhand ,1997 (1) SCC 416

how the passed a confirming statement to the families of the accused that their sons will not be
given any plea, as the whole nation is against them, and the last thing they can get is death.
Extra judicial Killings are often glorified by the public and media, portraying the police officers
involved as heroes who are cleaning up society. Which provides them a confidence of doing
such extra judicial killings, amidst all this worship, the public and the media celebrating this
unlawful violence forget that the police have no authority to perform such an act, and it is
violating the human rights of the accused. The same happened with the present matter in hand,
the death of the accused was being celebrated all over the nation, the tags like #JusticeforPooja
and #KILLTHERAPIST were trending all over the nation.
Many political leaders believe that more encounters will serve as their achievement in
maintaining law and order in the state. This is seen by the involvement of big political faces in
this case and their part in trending the hashtag such as #killtherapist, without any proper trial
the accused were treated as criminals. This non questioning attitude of the government is
leading to pouring wholesome power in the hands of the police, which can lead to dangerous
actions in near future, this act of the officials is also questioned by the supreme Court in the
case of PUCL v. State of Maharashtra 201414, where 99 encounters were questioned and still
remained unanswered or were diplomatically answered, the same way it was being done in our
case by saying that, police had no other option but to shoot the four accused, and if it would
have not been done then they would have fled away, which would have created a negative
image.
Supreme Court in its judgment in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1961)15 said:
“Extra-judicial killings, by executing punishment on the spot, deny the accused their
right to be given a notice of charge and an opportunity to be heard, defying the
principle of audi alteram partem and therefore, Article 21. Furthermore, they allow
the police to revel in lawlessness, avoid the scrutiny of courts and violate the
principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.”
The Constitution intends that Indiana should be governed by the rule of law, according to which
the Constitution is the supreme power and the legislative and the executive derive their
authority from it. The Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under
14 Supra Note 3
15 Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab ,1994 SCC (3) 569

Article 21, which is non-negotiable and applicable to everyone. It is the responsibility of the
police to follow the Constitution and protect the Right to Life of every individual, regardless
of innocence or guilt.
Therefore, the Petitioners most humbly conclude before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana
that the Police Officers should be accused of extra-judicial

4) Whether the Police can be accused of murder?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that extra judicial
killings are considered as violation of basic human rights and it also violates the right of “Audi
Alteram Partem” that means both the parties have a right to be heard before a court of law”,
hence in the present matter, Police Officials have been seen misusing their powers given to
them by law and violating the provisions established by law.
In the present matter, it is pertinent to note that the killing of the 4 accused was a desperate and
intentional killing by the police officers done under social pressure and the pressure of media,
which is to be considered as a biased act by the people who are supposed to uphold the law.
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines murder and its essentials which can be
reproduced as:
“300. Murder—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is

murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be in-flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
Hence, it is prima facie clear that the action caused by the officials coincides with every
essential provided under Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and an intention to kill was
involved and the officials knew that the act caused would result in death of the accused persons
as they are well qualified and trained in their job and knows that shooting on which body organ
results into death and on which organ a person is shot to prevent the escape.

The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand16 held that a police
official is not duty bound to take a person’s life merely because he is a heinous or dreaded
criminal and it was further stated that “encounters” are deemed to be “state sponsored
terrorism”. The court here clearly stated those police officials who kill criminals and take law
in their hands and project the incidents of these killings as encounters must be deprecated and
“These killings are not deemed as legal by our criminal justice system”.
Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Kadam & Etc. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath
Gupta & Anr17 held that extrajudicial killings which are not done in an emergency are
“nothing but cold blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law”.
Therefore, to instil fear in the minds of police officials so that they do not misuse the power,
the police official who in unauthorized to take away a person’s life in the shield of exercising
his duty will be considered in “rarest of rare cases” and that the person who would be a
perpetrator would be given death penalty.
Status of extra judicial killing in the State of Indiana is something which is noteworthy-
• According to a report, for the last 6 years the cases of encounter killings have
increased nearly five-fold.
• India has seen a 15% decline in registration of encounter killing cases in the six years
between 2016-17 and 2021-22.
• The cases shot up by 69.5% in the last two years from 2021-22 to march 2022.
In 2014, the Supreme Court in the PUCL v. State of Maharashtra18 case formulated 16-point
guidelines on extra-judicial killings. Some of the guidelines include prompt action, FIR
registration, independent investigation etc. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
has also laid down strict guidelines that government officials must follow in the case of extra-
judicial killing.
These guidelines have not been adhered to in the present matter and question as to how did the
accused got hold of the guns in the judicial custody of 10 police officers remain unanswered
until now.
16 Supra Note 12
17 Prakash Kadam & Etc. v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr, AIR 2011 SC 1945
18 Supra Note 3

The Right to fair trial enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiana is also violated
due the act done by police officers.
Justice Deepak Gupta, Ex Justice of the Supreme Court while speaking on the issue in a
webinar said:
“An Encounter is not a procedure established by law. Killing by police –it is a

killing, I’m qualifying my word, that will have to come out later – but it’s not a
procedure established by law. So, it becomes illegal by itself.”
In the case of, Zulfikar Nasir & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors19 convicted 16
Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpura mass murder case.
The High Court reversed the findings of Trial Court and convicted the accused officials for the
deaths of around 35 Muslims, who were allegedly killed by the PAC on that in the late hours
and their bodies thrown in a canal. The Court awarded life imprisonments to all the 16 accused.
In the aftermath of Hyderabad fake encounter killings20, the SC had set up a commission to
probe the killing of four accused in the gang rape and murder of a veterinarian. The Justice V.
S. Sirpurkar Commission set up submitted its report stating that it believes the police
deliberately fired on the accused “with an intent to cause their death” — and recommended
action against ten police officers and personnel under various charges, including murder.
In Bhagalpur blinding case Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1980) 21, because of increasing
crimes like abduction, kidnapping, murders, etc., the police officers in Bihar during the years
1979-80 started using a very brutal way to get information or confessions from the suspects,
i.e. they poured acid into the eyes of the suspects which burnt their eyes and eventually it led
to immediate blindness. This incident was reported by around 31 victims. The police officers
involved in this act were convicted by the court. This case also became the first-ever case in
which granting monetary compensation to the victim was considered by the Supreme Court.
22
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that custodial
violence or extra-judicial killings violate the dignity of any human being, and issued several
guidelines for the police on how to handle or interrogate the suspects.
19 Zulfikar Nasir & Ors. v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Crl.A.574, 629 and 884 of 2015
20 Disha Murder Case
21 Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar,1981 SCC (1) 627
22 Supra Note 11

23 (2011),
In Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta it was declared that the
death penalty will be awarded to the police official executing a fake encounter.
In fake encounters, the police frequently take on the function of the judge without even giving
the accused the opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of the Natural Justice Principle –
Audi Alteram Partem. In the case of EP Royappa24, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s
subjective activities are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to
media sources, these encounter killings are usually not carried out against wanted criminals,
but rather against the weaker members of society. It was assumed that the majority of the
interactions in UP were between Muslims or people from lower social levels.
The judgement given in above-mentioned case laws makes it prima facie clear that extra-
judicial killing have been conducted time and again by the officials which have been termed as
“Murder” by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana unless an
exceptional situation occurs. Similarly, the present matter in hand makes it clear that the Police
Officers have committed murder of the 4 accused persons.
Therefore, the Petitioners most humbly conclude before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Indiana
that the officials should be accused of murder under Sec.300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
23 Supra Note 16
24 EP Royappa 1974 SCC (4) 3

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Indiana, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that –
1) There has been violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused persons
enshrined under Art. 14 and Art. 21 of the Indiana Constitution.
2) There was Media Trial against the 4 accused persons.
3) The Police should be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution.
4) The Police should be accused of murder.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For this Act of kindness, the Petitioner shall duty
bound hold forever pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner)

6 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023: in The Matter of

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

6 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023: in The Matter of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC - 105

6th AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO._______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE STATE OF KARJAAT ……..…………………………….…..…RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. ______ OF 2023

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

-Memorial for the Petitioners-

1. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused

2. Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?

3. Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?

4. Whether the Police can be accused of murder?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 1

SNO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

2. AFSPA Air Force Special Powers Act

3. AIR All India Report

6. CCTV Closed Circuit Television

7. CPC Civil Procedural Code

8. CrPC Criminal Procedural Code

10. i.e In essence / that is

11. IPC Indian Penal Code

13. Ltd. Limited

14. M/s Messrs

15. Mr. Mister

16. Ms. Miss

17. NGO Non-Governmental Organization

18. NHRC National Human Rights Commission

19. Ors. Others

21. Para Paragraph

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 2

22. PIB Press Information Bureau

23. PIL Public Interest Litigation

24. PO Police Officer

25. PUCL People's Union for Civil Liberties

26. Pvt. Private

28. SCC Supreme Court cases

29. SCR Supreme Court reports

30. Smt. Shrimati or Shreemati

31. SLP Special Leave Petition

32. u/a Under Article

33. u/s Under Section

34. UDHR Universal Declaration of Human

35. UOI Union of India

36. UP Uttar Pradesh

37. US United States

39. WP Writ Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 3

S. NO CASE PAGE NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 5

Article 32 of the Kesi Constitution is produced as follows:

Article 136 of the Kesi Constitution is produced as follows:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 7

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 8

A. Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 9

1) Whether there is violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused

2) Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?

3) Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS Page 10