6 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023: in The Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

TC - 105
6th AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2023
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._______ OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SABKA ADHIKAAR & 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 Respondents-

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………………………………………………………………………27
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 1

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

22. PO Police Officer
23. Pvt. Private
24. S. Section
25. SCC Supreme Court cases
26. SCR Supreme Court reports
27. SLP Special Leave Petition
28. Smt. Shrimati or Shreemati
29. u/s Under Section
30. UOI Union of India
31. UP Uttar Pradesh
32. US United States
33. v. versus
34. WP Writ Petition

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

1) A.V. Bellarmin v. Mr. V. Santhakumaran Nair 12
2) Bodhisattwa Gauttam v. Subhra Chakraborty 14
3) Disha Murder Case 22
4) Express Newspaper Ltd. v. UOI 15,17
5) Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI 19
6) Keshwananda Bharti v. UOI 18
7) Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal 18
8) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah 19
9) Pilibhit Encounter Case 26
10) PUCL v. State of Maharashtra 22
11) Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 16
12) S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 16
13) Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of UP 14
14) Sriniwas v. State of Madras 15
15) State of UP v. Raj Narain 15
16) UOI v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms 16
17) Virendra v. State of Punjab 16

❖ STATUTE REFERRED:
1.) Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958
2.) Code of Civil Procedure,1908
3.) Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973
4.) Indian Penal Code,1860
5.) The Constitution of Indiana, 1950
❖ PROVISIONS USED:
1.) Art. 32 of the Constitution of India,1950
5.) Art. 39A of the Constitution of India,1950
7.) Sec. 81 of the Indian Penal Code,1860
9.) Sec. 99 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
12.) Sec. 375 of the Indian Penal Code,1860l
13.) Sec. 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
14.) Sec. 4 of the Armed Force Special Powers Act, 1958

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents 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 Indiana 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 Indiana Constitution is produced as follows:
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. Pooja the resident of Republic of Indiana was a young practicing advocate. On 17th January
2023 around 9:30 P.M. she was returning from her workplace on her two-wheeler, wherein
she caught the sight of 4 men asking for help in desperate conditions besides the highway.
2. Out of generosity, she got down where 2 men accompanied her to a distant secluded place
where they mislead her of the fact that their friend was lying injured.
3. On her way she realized that her phone was inside her two-wheeler so she returned back to
get the same and on her return she found her two-wheeler punctured before she could do
anything about it, all of a sudden two men who had asked for help earlier accompanied by
two other men came towards her and started touching her inappropriately. She slapped one
of them for their misbehaviour and impropriety, to which out of frustrating they dragged
her to a distant place and raped her one by one.
4. This was not all, when they got alarmed about their heinous actions, they poured petroleum
on her body and burnt her alive until she was dead and ran towards the village.
5. The body of the victim (Pooja) was found by a farmer on 18th January 2023 around 6:00
a.m. at an underpass on the Karjaat-Saanchi National Highway. After which the police were
informed about the incident so caused by the Sarpanch of the village. Recent females
missing cases were verified and thereafter the identification of the body was done through
the handbag and scarf of the deceased by the family members.
6. During the investigation a CCTV footage was discovered, in which the faces of the 4 men
running towards the village was recognized by the police thereafter they started their
inquiry based on the above-mentioned information.
7. On 23rd January,2023 the 4 accused namely Akram, Ramesh, Suneel & Maadhav were
arrested by the Police Officials. They were presented before the district magistrate within
24 hours and the request for 7 days remand for further investigation was granted. On 3rd
February 2023 while they were being taken to the court, they tried to run from the police
custody, in process snatched guns from the constable and fired two-gunshots in the air to
which the police retaliated by firing on them as there was no other possible and logical
option left at hand, and the 4 accused died on spot.
8. Thereafter, the agitated human rights NGO ‘Sabka Adhikaar’ filed PIL in High Court of
Karjaat against police officials taking law in their hands, to which High Court passed a

judgement in favour of the respondents and considered 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?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that there was no
violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused persons enshrined under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiana as contented by the Petitioners as no such
right of the accused persons have been denied by the Police Officials in any given
circumstances. It is submitted furthermore, that the action of police clearly presents the
bona fide intention of the police officers to abide by the law and act as per the rules and
regulations laid down by the CrPC.
2.) Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that there was no
media trial against the 4 accused persons as in the present matter the media has judiciously
exercised its power given under Article 19 of the Constitution of Indiana. It is submitted
furthermore, that in the present case the matter is a public concern which gives right to the
media to publish the news and to give information to the public as they have the right to
receive information given to them under Art. 19 (1)(a).
3.) Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?

It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the Police
cannot be accused of extra-judicial killing because they have judiciously and lawfully
exercised their right to private defence which is given under Sec. 100 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

4.) Whether the Police can be accused of murder?

It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the Police
cannot be accused of murder as the Police Officers have exercised their powers lawfully
under private defence which is mentioned in Section 96 and Section 100 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is submitted
furthermore, that the action of police officers was lawful under Section 4 of the Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 which authorises every commissioned, non-
commissioned or warrant officer to fire or use force, even to the causing of death of any
person who the officer believes to be acting in contravention of any law in a disturbed area
and considers necessary for the maintenance of public order.

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

persons?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that in accordance to the
fact sheet, the present Special Leave Petition was filed by Sabka Adhikar, a Non-Government
Organisation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana on the contention of violation of
Human Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Indiana. But in the present case, there has been no violation of any of the
Fundamental Rights or the Human Rights of the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner
are falsely implicated upon the respondents to trap them in a false case.
The contention of the petitioners as to infringement of rights provided under Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Indiana Constitution are untrue. Article 14 can be produced under as follows:
“14. Equality before law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”
As per held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A.V.Bellarmin v.
Mr.V.Santhakumaran Nair1;
“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
1
A.V. Bellarmin v. Mr.V.Santhakumaran Nair,(2015) 4 LW 443

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.”
Thus, the free and fair trial is indeed included in Article 14 as well as Article 21 but such right
of the accused was never denied. In fact, on 24-01-2023, the Police presented the four accused
in front of the local Magistrate and requested for a 7 days’ remand for further investigation.
Such action of police clearly presents the bona fide intention of the police officers to abide by
the law and act as per the rules and regulations laid down by the CrPC.
Further, on the date of such death/incident, the police officers were officially discharging their
duties and were taking the accused persons in the court only for commencement of the trial. It
was the accused persons who went out of their obligations to cooperate with the police and
abide by the law, and furthermore tried to flee away from the law.
The police personnel assigned for that job, never took the law into their own hands but,
however, taking after every precautionary steps to take the accused persons to the court who
then snatched the revolvers from the Constables while they were being taken to the Court,
jumped out of the Police Van and fired two rounds in the air were posing every danger to the
public but also the police, armed with modern sophisticated weaponry in their hands. The
respondents found no other way and had to shoot down the accused persons which otherwise
would have fled and would have become a prominent danger to the lives of common people.
Further, the attempt of open fire by the accused persons over the respondents posed a direct
threat to the lives of the respondents-police, who acted by the law and had no option left with
themselves exercised their right to private defence so as to save their own lives as well as to
catch the persons who were accused of such a heinous crime.
It is also rendered that if too much emphasis is laid on the Fundamental and Human Rights of
the persons accused of such a heinous crime of gang rape and murder which is not just against
the moral of the society but is against the humanity as well, such criminals may go scot-free
without exposing any element or iota of criminality and the crime would go unpunished which
would result in the infringement of the fundamental and human rights of the other people. In
the matter at hand, Pooja was a young Advocate and had just passed her college and started
practicing. She also had the same Fundamental Rights as well as the Human Rights which were
taken by the accused persons. If the necessary action would not have been taken by the police

in that moment, it might would have resulted in infringement of several other innocent persons
like Pooja. In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty2, the Supreme Court observed:
“Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime
against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her
into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates
herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in
derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against
basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the
fundamental rights, namely, the right to life with human dignity contained in Art 21”.
Further, the action of respondents was a complete response to the action of accused persons of
opening fire and fleeing away from the justice system. The allegation as to “fake encounter” or
“extra-judicial killing” is completely baseless and has no evidences pertaining to the same.
Thus, we can see that neither fundamental rights nor the human rights of the petitioners has
been violated and all the arguments advanced by the petitioners are based on surmise and
conjectures.
Further, in Smt Ujjam Bai vs State of U.P.3 it has been held that;
“Unless a question of the enforcement of a fundamental right arises, Article 32 does

not apply. There can be no question of the enforcement of a fundamental right if the
order challenged is a valid and legal order, in spite of the allegation that it is erroneous.
I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that no question of the enforcement of
fundamental right arises in this case and the writ petition is not maintainable.”
Following the same, the present petition must also be dismissed as there is no locus standi of
the petitioners as none of the Fundamental or Human Rights of the accused persons has been
infringed. Also, it was the accused persons themselves who opened the fire in response to which
the respondents-police had to take the necessary actions.
2
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty,1996 AIR 922
3
Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.,1963 SCR(1) 778

2) Whether there was a Media Trial against the 4 accused persons?
The Respondents humbly submit before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that the present
matter in hand clearly shows the regulated functioning of the media as work of media is to flash
the news and this right given to them cannot be curtailed as it would amount to infringing their
right to present the views of the society at large given to them under Art. 19 of the Constitution
of Indiana. Hence, there is no meaning of media trial as there exist only one type of trial that is
judicial trial which is given to the supreme body of the State.
In the case of Express Newspapers Ltd v. UOI 4, it was decided that the mechanism and
manner in which the limitation is imposed must also be equitable, fair, and rational. The
Supreme Court went into great detail on press freedom, but concluded that it cannot be
unrestrained, like other privileges, can be subjected to legitimate limitations.
As in the present matter the media has judiciously exercised its power given under Article 19
of the Constitution of Indiana. The heart of the declaration contained in Article 19 says as
follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain5 has held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens in addition to protecting the
rights of the citizens to know the right to receive information regarding matters of public
concern.
As the same is in the present case, the matter was of public concern which gives right to the
media to publish the news and to give information to the public as they have the right to receive
information.
In the case of Sriniwas v. State of Madras 6, the Madras High Court held that;
“the freedom of speech and expression is not limited to the publicity of views. It includes
the publicity of views of others also which is possible by freedom of press only.”
4
Express Newspaper Ltd. v. UOI, 1986 AIR 515
5
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865
6
Sriniwas v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1951 Madras 79

Furthermore, it is of utmost importance to note that in the case of Virendra v. State of

Punjab7, the Supreme Court has said that preventing any newspaper from publishing any
Article of current importance is encroachment of the freedom of speech and expression.
The one common factor in the above-mentioned laws is that the work of media is to collect and
provide information to the general public in whatsoever medium possible. This rightful and
lawful effort of media cannot be termed as a trial but only as a medium of informed citizenry.
Patanjali Sastri, J. 8, has also observed that;
“Freedom of Speech and of Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations,
for without free political discussion, no public education, so essential for the proper
functioning of the process of Government, is possible.”
The Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms9 that;
“One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all

equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of
speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes
freedom to hold opinions.”
Furthermore, in the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram10 it was observed that;
“everyone has a fundamental right to form his opinion on any issues of general concern.
Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting
expression. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.
In democracy, it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song.”
It is clear that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish
and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and other views with complete freedom and by resorting to
all available means of publication. The right to freedom of the press includes the right to
propagate ideas and views and to publish and circulate them. However, the freedom of the press
is not absolute, just as the freedom of expression is not. Public Interest has to be safeguard by
7
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896
8
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 124
9
UOI v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294
10
S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCC (2) 574

Article 19(1)(2) which lays down reasonable limitations to the freedom of expression in matters
affecting:
a. Sovereignty and integrity of the State
b. Security of the State
c. Friendly relations with foreign countries
d. Public order
e. Decency and morality
f. Contempt of court
g. Defamation
h. Incitement to an offence
Henceforth, no such exception to the law was affected in the present case and therefore it does
not fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions wherein the media should’ve been restricted
to flash news and what they published in the public domain had been lawfully done falling
under the ambit of Article 19 of the Indiana Constitution.
Keeping this view in mind Venkataramiah J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India11 has stated;
“In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.
The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-
formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where
television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all
Sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by
publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate [Government]
cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and view
shaving a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not
be palatable to Governments and other authorities.”
11
Supra Note 4

The above statement of the Supreme Court illustrates that the freedom of press is essential for
the proper functioning of the democratic process. “Democracy means Government of the
people, by the people and for the people”12; it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled
to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his
right of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential.
This explains the constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of press in India.
In the matter of Keshavananda Bharati v. Union of India13, the Supreme Court famously
held that the freedoms provided by Article 19 of the Constitution are part of the ground norm
governing the Indian society. It is settled position of law that the right to freedom of speech
and expression in Article 19(1)(a) includes liberty of press and Article 19(2) licenses
reasonable restrictions to be imposed by the statute for the purposes of various matters
including but not limited to contempt of court.
The expression ‘trial by media’ itself is a misnomer as the word “trial” is nowhere defined in
the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Black’s law dictionary defines “trial”
as a formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in adversary
proceedings. Trial by media is still a debatable term and is basically used to denote a facet of
media activism.
The Constitution of Indiana preserves freedom of speech and expression and right to fair trial
under Article 19 and Article 21 respectively. In Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal14 it
was held that;
“this is one right that enables the aam janta to engage in public-interest activities; one
can comment freely on the workings of Indian democracy without fear of retaliation;
each individual is an arbiter of justice in his or her own conscience; authoritarian
governments, repressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be under
pressure; Not just international diplomacy, but something much bigger and deeper
which is people’s consciences among them.”
12
Patanjali Shastri,CJ
13
Keshwananda Bharti v. UOI, (1973) 4 SCC 225
14
Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 SCC 845

Further, in the case of, Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India15 wherein it was stated that
the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire and impart ideas
and information about matters of common interest.
Furthermore, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah16 it

was observed that freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) means the right to
express one’s convictions and opinions freely, by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or
electronic media”.
Therefore, the respondents humbly conclude that there was no media trial against the 4 accused
persons as the media was lawfully exercising the right given to them under Article 19 of the
Indiana Constitution, and this lawful duty of the media cannot be termed as a trial wherein it
was only imparting of judicious information.
15
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, WP No. 81 of 1959
16
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah, 1993 AIR 171

3) Whether the Police can be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution?
The Respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that according
to sec. 81 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 any action of a person which is done likely done to
prevent other possible harm is not punishable by law. Sec. 81 of the Indian Penal Code,1860
can be reproduced as-
“81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other
harm—Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm,
and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm the person or
property. Explanation—It is question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be
prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the
risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.”
Therefore, the act so caused by the Police cannot be punishable under law as there was lack of
criminal intention in the act so caused by the officials and they did that to prevent other possible
grievous harm that could have taken place in a situation where the accused got hold of the guns
possessed by the Police Officers whilst they were in the judicial custody.
Moreover, the State of Indiana works upon the concept of rule of law, and every individual
organ have the right to exercise its rights without the interruption of other organs, may it be
legislation, executive or judiciary.
Extra judicial killing refers to the deliberate, unlawful killings of an accused person by any
government authority outside of any legal framework. This explains the basic elements of an
extra judicial killing which are, that it should be done on purpose, it should be unlawful and
the authorities have to work outside the legal framework.
The council would like to state that the killing was not deliberate, the police was taking the
accused to the court for the trial where the accused tried to escape from the police van, secondly
it was not done outside the legal framework, they were fulfilling their responsibility of taking
the accused to the court for trial.
Moreover, under exception 3 of sec. 300 of Indian Penal Code,1860 it is said that Culpable
homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting
for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes

death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due
discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death
is caused. The police officials were completing their part of duty during which the accused
snatched the gun and tried to escape, the officer’s first priority was to stop the accused
otherwise they would have fled away, this case has gathered a mass attention in the nation and
the public of the country is getting aggressive towards it, this case is the main highlight of every
news channel and social media and if during this state of time the news of, escape of the four
accused would have reached to the citizens which could have led to mass agitation.
Police is responsible to maintain law and order within the nation, so it was their responsibility
to stop the accused from completing their ill intentions.
As the facts are stated before the Hon’ble court, it is known that the two of the accused Suneel
and Madhav snatched the revolvers when the police were taking them to the court and jumped
out of the police van with the intention to run away, and at the same time their other two
partners Akram and Ramesh also followed them to escape, they fired two rounds in the air with
the snatched gun, which could have been dangerous for any of the person present at the spot,
reason being the police officials shot them due to which they died on the spot. The officials
had no primary intention to kill them but private defence in the basic right provided to every
personal. Keeping that in mind the officials had the shoot the accused or otherwise they would
have harmed anyone who was present at the spot.
Section 100 of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860 says that
“When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death—The right of
private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section ( Section 99), to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm
to the assailant.”
The Indian Penal Code,1860 gives a right to a person to respond if there is an eminent danger
of death, and the same was followed by the officials. Sec. 100 of Indian Penal code justifies
the killing of a person who kills another under the restrictions mentioned under Sec. 99 of the
code, and Sec. 99 lays down the conditions as well as the limits within which the right to private
defence can be exercised

In the PUCL v. State of Maharashtra 17case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with
the writ petitions questioning the genuineness of 99 encounter killings by the Mumbai police
in which 135 alleged criminals were shot dead between 1995 and 1997. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court then laid down 16 guidelines as the standard procedure to be followed for through,
effective, and independent investigation in the cases of death during police encounters, and all
those guidelines were followed in our case by our officials, no delays were made in any one of
them, still the officials image is being ruined by questioning their sincerity towards their job.
The works of the police is being appreciated by the Hon'ble High Court of Kajaraat:
“by naming it as an act of bravery, they said that police had no other option but to
shoot the four accused, if they would not have done it, the accused would have fled
away”,
which would result in setting a bad example for the upcoming generations. It is shameful that
the brave act of police is being burdened by some private troops by naming it as extra judicial
killings.
Right to life is the basic right provided to every individual under the Constitution of Indiana
i.e., this right does not only reside with the common citizens of the nation but also the police
officers who were present at the spot of the incident. The accused were having the gun and
were continuously firing rounds, this could have been resulted in heavy damage to any of the
police officials. The accused could have crossed any limits to escape. Our Constitution
guarantees the Right to life and Personal liberty under 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 and guilt, this also includes
the people who were present on the spot in front of those accused carrying gun and shooting
rounds, everyone possess a right to life which also include those police officers whose life was
at risk.
The act was an act of bravery, the case has been a top highlight of the news and social media
since last couple of days, its heat has reached each and every house of the nation. Upon which
if the news of the accused not being under arrest would have spread all over the nation that
would have led to a huge violence, likewise the Disha murder case from 2014 where the nurse
was raped and brutally killed by some people. This would have raised a big question on the
17
PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 1 BOMLR 431

executive and judicial powers of the nation and a wrong message would have spread all over
the country if the police officials would not have worked appropriately on the spot. Their
bravery is being appreciated all over the nation and this act is being cheered by calling it ‘the
act of bravery'.
Therefore, the respondents humbly conclude before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that
the Police Officers cannot be charged of extra-judicial killing as they judiciously exercised
their right to private defence given to them under Sec. 100 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

4) Whether the Police can be accused of murder?
The respondents humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana that according
to Section 96 of IPC, nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private
defence, which clearly justifies the act caused by Police Officers and the circumstances in
which the act was so caused mentioned in point 7 of brief facts, which can be produced as
follows:
“ On 3rd February,2023 while they were being taken to the court, they tried to run from
the police custody, in process snatched guns from the constable and fired two-gunshots
in the air to which the police retaliated by firing on them as there was no other possible
and logical option left at hand, and the 4 accused died on spot.”
Section 100 of IPC mentions, when the right of private defence of the body extends to causing
death. The same has been produced here as follows:
“100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.—The
right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the
assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
(First) — Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(Secondly) —Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen-sion that grievous
hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(Thirdly) — An assault with the intention of committing rape;
(Fourthly) —An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
(Fifthly) — An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduct-ing;
(Sixthly) — An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to
have recourse to the public authorities for his release.”
Considering ‘Secondly’ of the same, it is clear from the fact sheet that the 4 accused had intent
of running away from the police custody and they were likely to cause grievous harm to the
police officers in order to escape from the custody as mentioned in point no. 7 which is
produced as follows:

“ On 3rd February,2023 while they were being taken to the court, they tried to run from
the police custody, in process snatched guns from the constable and fired two-gunshots
in the air to which the police retaliated by firing on them as there was no other possible
and logical option left at hand, and the 4 accused died on spot.”
The counsel would humbly submit before the bench that, in March 1997, Justice M. N.
Venkatachaliah (the then chairperson of the NHRC), in the backdrop of increased complaints
from the general public and nongovernmental organizations related to instances of fake
encounters by the police underlined that the police have not been conferred with any right to
take away someone's life, except under two circumstances: If the death is caused in the exercise
of the right to private defence and Section-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that
authorizes the police to use force, extending up to the causing of death, as may be necessary to
arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
In the present matter in hand, Akram, Ramesh, Suneel, Maadhav were accused of rape and
murder charges u/s 375 and 300 of IPC respectively which are offences punishable with death
or imprisonment for life and the act which was so caused by police officers was done while
exercising their right to private defence which is granted them u/s 99 of IPC fulfilling both the
conditions prescribed for justifying their act. Hence, cannot be charged of murder in the present
matter in hand.
Moreover, according to Sec. 81 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nothing is an offence done to
prevent other possible harm. Sec. 81 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 can be reproduced as-
“81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other
harm—Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm,
and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm the person or
property. Explanation—It is question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be
prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the
risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.”
Therefore, it is prima facie clear that the Officials cannot be accused of murder u/s 300 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 as their act was done without any criminal intention to cause harm
rather done in good faith to prevent other grievous harm that could have occurred as the accused

persons went outside the scope of their rights and snatched the guns of the officials whilst they
were been taken to court.
Further, the counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that Section 4 of the Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958 authorises every commissioned, non-
commissioned or warrant officer to fire or use force, even to the causing of death of any person
who the officer believes to be acting in contravention of any law in a disturbed area and
considers necessary for the maintenance of public order.
Considering point no. 7 of the proposition which says as follows-
“Suneel and Madhav snatched the revolvers from the Constables while they were being
taken to the Court, jumped out of the Police Van and fired two rounds in the air. Akram
and Ramesh also followed them and tried to escape.”
Therefore, it is prima facie clear that the accused were in possession of the guns and therefore
the act so caused by police officers was under the provocation by the accused and with an
intention of preventing any innocent killing in the area surrounded and the act was committed
with a bona fide intention to uphold the law and order.
It is pertinent to note that, in the Pilibhit encounter case18 of 1991, the high court sentenced
the policemen to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000. The court set
aside the murder conviction because the police officers’ case would be covered by Exception
3 to Section 300 of the IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant, causes death by an act which he
thinks is ‘lawful’.
It is humbly concluded by the Respondents that in no condition does the act of police officers’
amount to murder because they exercised the rights given to them under lawful provisions and
the act was done to keep up law and order in the society. Furthermore, they have judiciously
exercised their power of private defence provided to them under Sec. 96 and Sec. 100 of the
IPC in compliance with Sec. 46 of the CrPC and their right to prevent other harm which is
provided u/s 81 of the IPC.
18
Pilibhit encounter case ,2022 SCC 844

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 no violation of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights of accused persons
enshrined under Art. 14 and Art. 21 of the Indiana Constitution.
2) There was no Media Trial against the 4 accused persons.
3) The Police cannot be accused of Extra-Judicial Execution.
4) The Police cannot 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 Respondents shall duty
bound hold forever pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Respondents)

6 Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2023: in The Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

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 Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC - 105

6th AMITY INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

SABKA ADHIKAAR & ORS. …………….………………..….PETITIONER

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 Respondents-

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 RESPONDENTS Page 1

SNO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

2. AFSPA Air Force Special Powers Act

3. AIR All India Report

5. CPC Civil Procedural Code

6. CrPC Criminal Procedural Code

7. FIR First Information Report

9. i.e In essence / that is

10. IPC Indian Penal Code

12. Ltd. Limited

13. M/s Messrs

14. Mr. Mister

15. Ms. Miss

16. NGO Non-Governmental Organization

17. NHRC National Human Rights Commission

19. Para Paragraph

20. PIB Press Information Bureau

21. PIL Public Interest Litigation

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 2

22. PO Police Officer

23. Pvt. Private

25. SCC Supreme Court cases

26. SCR Supreme Court reports

27. SLP Special Leave Petition

28. Smt. Shrimati or Shreemati

29. u/s Under Section

30. UOI Union of India

31. UP Uttar Pradesh

32. US United States

34. WP Writ Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 3

S. NO CASE PAGE NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 5

Article 32 of the Indiana Constitution is produced as follows:

Article 136 of the Indiana Constitution is produced as follows:

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 7

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 8

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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 9

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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 10

4.) Whether the Police can be accused of murder?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 11

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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS Page 12