MP 11

XXIV MPLC NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON -2024

____________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATA

_____________________________________________________________________________

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARATA

IN THE MATTER OF

A AND OTHERS … (PETITIONER)

V/s

STATE OF TAHARASHTRA AND OTHER. … (RESPONDENT)

_______________________________________________________________________

Writ Petition no………….. /2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF BHARATA AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF
THE RESPONDENT ABOVENAMED.

_______________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10
 WHETHER POLICE ARE GUILTY OF COMMITING 10
THE OFFENCE OF MURDER?
 WHETHER ACT OF POLICE IS A VIOLATION OF 15
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND THEREBY HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE FATEFUL ACCUSED? & WHETHER
THE PETITON IS MAINTAINABLE?
 PRAYER 17

2
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDGEMENTS

1. Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. The State of Assam And Ors PIL/86/2021

2. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand 2012 12 SCC 72
3. PUCL v. The State of Maharashtra 1997 3 SCC 433
4. The State of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkarhabib Md 1952 AIR 75 SCR 284.
5. Harendra Kumar Deka vs. State of Assam (2008),
6. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another 2011 7 SCC 639.

STATUTES
1. Indian Penal Code 1860.

2. The Criminal Procedure Code 1973

3. The Constitution of India

4. The General Clauses Act 1977

5. The Police Act 1861

6. The Bombay Police Manual 1959, Vol III,

WEBSITES

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.casemine.com

3. www.legalserviceindia.com

4. www.scobserver.in

5. www.livelaw.in

3
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. IPC- INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

2. CONSTITUTION – CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 & AS AMENDED
3. CrPC- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

4
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________

THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS,

MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF BHARAT.

THE RESPONDENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THIS WRIT PETITION IS

NOT MAINTAINABLE

5
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Union of Bharata is a country that occupies the greater part of South Asia. Its
government is a constitutional republic. Mayura was a reputed doctor and a social
worker who was residing in Aura city located in Taharashtra state of Union of
Bharata. She was a feminist lady who always used to raise her voice against domestic
violence. One man suddenly came in front of her car. He desperately asked for help.
Upon request of the man she quickly went with the man to help his wife.
2. All of a sudden, man, who had asked for help came towards her and threatened her by
stating that if her does'nt stop encouraging women to file complaint of domestic
violence she will repaint.
3. On 23.8.2023 i.e. the next day, a body was found at an underpass on the same
national highway by a farmer around 5.30 a.m. He informed the village serpent, who
alerted the local police. After investigation, it was found that the dead body was of
Mayura who was dragged for few kames. The Police started various investigation
procedures and discovered a CCTV camera which was placed near the highway for
traffic control. However, the wire of the CCTV camera was cut in pieces.
4. By opening the recorded footage of the CCTV camera which was recorded before
cutting of the wire, the Police saw one face where the recording timing showed
around 11:30 P.M. based on which, they came to know that there was a man who had
sought help of Mayura and it was seen in the footage that she went with him.
5. After this the footage was not recorded. Therefore, they had started searching for man
who had sought her help. On 20-8- 2023, based on its investigation, the Police
arrested, Ninja. After investigation and statements of people who are connected with
Ninja, police came to know that he had committed three more brutal murders of
women who were protecting rights of domestic violence victims.
6. Police came to know that he is a victim of false domestic cases and therefore, to take
revenge he had murdered his wife and other three women who were helping her. 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 Mayura and other three deceased.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
7. People from various political background as well as Film Industry and Media houses
demanded speedy Justice and #KillTheSerialKiller became viral all over the Country
and the Government took initiative for a speedy disposal of the case.
8. On 4-11.2023, the Police presented the four accused in front of the local Magistrate
and requested for a 7 days remand for further investigation. On 10-11-2023, the
Media flashed the news that Ninja had been shot dead by the Police while he was
being taken to the Court. On the day of incident, Ninja snatched the revolver from the
Constables while he was being taken to the Court, jumped out of the Police Van and
fired two rounds in the air. The Police claimed that they found no other ways and had
to shoot down Ninja otherwise the he would have fled.
9. The killing of the accused in the alleged encounter was hailed by a section of people,
the families of the deceased and human rights groups alleged that the police took law
into their hands, term this as extra-judicial killing. 'A' one of the family members of
the Accused also alleged that the police officers have framed the murder scene. But,
an NGO named as 'MANAVADHIKAR BHACHAO FOUNDATION' filed a Petition
before the Hon'ble High Court of Taharashtra.
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Taharashtra after hearing all the arguments of the case
held "The Police had no other option but to shoot the accused failing to which he
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.
Therefore, the Court finds the Act of the Police as an Act of Bravery and sudden
reflex to counter the situation which arose in front of them.
11. ‘A’ who was not a party in the petition of High Court, have approached the Supreme
Court, seeking registration of murder case against the police officers involved.
Alleging that the accused was psychologically ill and was killed in a stage-managed
gunfight, the families filed a writ petition under the provisions of Article 32 of the
Constitution that enables an individual to seek redressal for the violation of their
fundamental rights. The NGO, after the Judgment by the Hon'ble High Court,
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the contention of violation of Human
Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Republic of Bharata. Both the petitions have been clubbed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Union of Bharata.

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
_____________________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER POLICE ARE GUILTY OF COMMITING THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER?

2. WHETHER ACT OF POLICE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT AND THEREBY HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FATEFUL ACCUSED?
& WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER POLICE ARE GUILTY OF COMMITING THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER?
 The counsels for the respondents humbly and most respectfully submit that the
police are not guilty of committing the offence of murder.
 That the triad of
i. Exception 3 of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code
ii. Section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code
iii. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
; Protects the Police while discharging duties as public servant and in self
defence.

2. WHETHER ACT OF POLICE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT AND THEREBY HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FATEFUL ACCUSED?
& WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
 The counsel for respondent humbly submits that the act of police is not a
violation of fundamental right of the fateful accused & thus along with other
reasons mentioned below, the counsel most respectfully submits that this
petition is not maintainable.
 Under the circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner approaching this
Court by way of this petition merely seeking some publicity gives way to
dismiss the petition.

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
______________________________________________________________________

1. WHETHER POLICE ARE GUILTY OF COMMITING THE OFFENCE OF

MURDER?
The counsel for the respondents humbly and most respectfully submits that the police
are not guilty of committing the offence of murder.
Section 299 and Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deal with murder.
Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act,
culpable homicide is considered as murder if:
 The act is committed with an intention to cause death.
 The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender
has knowledge that it would result in death.
Ingredients of Murder
i. Causing death: There should be an intention of causing death,
ii. Doing an act: There should be an intention to cause such bodily injury
that is likely to cause death, or
iii. The act must be done: with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause
the death of another.
 Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC where culpable homicide is not considered as
murder-
If the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave
provocation, and his act causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any
other person by accident or mistake.
This exception is subject to a certain proviso, that is:
I. That the provocation is not sought or is voluntarily provoked by the offender to be
used as an excuse for killing or causing any harm to the person.

II. That the provocation is not given by anything that is done in obedience to the law, or
by a public servant while exercising the powers lawfully of a public servant.

III. That the provocation is not done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of
private defense.

10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 The act is done by a public servant who is acting to promote public justice. If the
public servant commits an act which is necessary to discharge his duty as is done in
good faith and he believes it to be lawful.
 IPC Section 96 to 106 of the penal code states the law relating to the right of private
defence of person and property. Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of
private defence is absolutely necessary for the protection of one’s life, liberty and
property.
IPC Section 96. Things done in private defence:
 Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
The right of self-defence under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly held by
restrictions under Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the
inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defence.
 Law does not expect from the person, whose life is placed in danger, to understand,
with clarity of mind and calculate whether this act of private defence shall land him in
jail or otherwise.
 The person claiming such a right should be such in proportion of the injuries
sustained, the threat induced or the circumstances demand to save the life of himself
and the other person.
Section 97.Right of private defence of the body and of Property:
 Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend-
First-His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence
affecting the human body;
Secondly-The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other
person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft,
robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft,
robbery, mischief for criminal trespass.
 IPC Section100. 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:--

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 1. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise
be the consequence of such assault;
2. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
6. 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.
 To invoke the provisions of sec 100, I.P.C., four conditions must exist:
# that the person exercising the right of private defense must be free from fault in
bringing about the encounter.
# there must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm
# there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat;
# there must have been a necessity for taking the life.
 S.46 of the CrPC provides the procedure for such arrest.
 S.46(2) of the CrPC states that if the accused forcibly resists the arrest or in turn
evades the arrest, the arresting officer shall be entitled to apply any necessary means
to effect such arrest. Such necessary means must be imminently important and that a
prudent man considers necessary.
 S.46(3) of the CrPC states that no such officer is entitled to cause the death of such
accused unless he is accused of any offense punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. It would mean that if one surrenders to the custody of an officer and does not
evade arrest and does not restrain the due process, he need not be forcibly arrested or
subjected to any kind of force.
1
 ['It is not the duty of the Police Officers to kill the accused merely because he is a
dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the Police have to arrest the accused and put them up
for trial. But, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that there are cases where the Police,
who are performing their duty, are attacked and killed. In such circumstances, while
the Police have to do their legal duty of arresting the criminals, they have also to
protect themselves. Unless unimpeachable evidence is on record to establish that their
action is indefensible, mala fide and vindictive, they cannot be subjected to
prosecution. Sanction must be a precondition to their prosecution'.]

1
Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72)

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 The police are not a lawless organisation, it is the primary enforcement agency of the
state. The Police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of
maintaining law and order and public order in the society. They are bound by many
rules and regulations and therefore cannot act arbitrarily. In this case the incident took
place in the state of Taharashtra and therefore the rules and regulations of that state
are applicable to the police. In this present incident the accused Ninja was being
transported and being escorted to the court by the police and on the way, in an attempt
to escape lawful custody snatched the revolver of the police and fired two rounds in
the air.
 The Bombay Police Manual 1959, Vol III, which talks about Powers and Duties of
Guards, Escorts and Sentries, rule no 365, 415, talks about the use of firearms by the
guards and escorts of prisoners. It clearly states as follows:
 Rule 365. Use of firearms by guards. - In case a prisoner attempts to escape or resists
the efforts of the guard to prevent the escape, the guard would be fully justified in
using firearms to overcome the prisoner's resistance. The extreme course of shooting
down the prisoner should be resorted to only in cases where the prisoner is charged of
an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Should the prisoner cause
or attempt to cause bodily injury while effecting escape, firearms can be used subject
to the right of private defence as given by Section 100. Indian Penal Code, i: e. when
death or grievous hurt is caused or apprehended
 415. Use of firearms by escort of prisoners. In case a prisoner attempts to escape or
resists the efforts of the escort to prevent the escape, the escort would be fully
justified in using firearms to over- come the prisoner's resistance. The extreme course
of shooting down the prisoner should be resorted to only in cases where the prisoner
is charged of an offence punishable with death or Imprisonment for life. Should the
prisoner cause or attempt to cause bodily injury while effecting escape, firearms can
be used subject to the right of private defence as given by Section 100, Indian Penal
Code, i: e. when death or grievous hurt is caused or apprehended
 Ninja was a serial killer who had murdered three other women and was being charged
of committing murder and rape of Dr Mayura all of which offences are punishable
with death. Therefore, the police have simply followed the clearly laid down
procedure.

13
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 The Police Act 1861 was enacted to re-organise the police and to make it a more
efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime
 Section 23. Duties of police-officers:- It shall be the duty of every police-officer
promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any
competent authority; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public
peace; to prevent to detect and bring offences to justice and to apprehend all persons
whom he is legally authorised to apprehend, and for whose apprehension sufficient
ground exists, and it shall be lawful for every police-officer, for any of the purposes
mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect, any drinking-shop,
gaming-house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters. Therefore,
the police were duty bound to adhere to all the provisions aforementioned and were
not at liberty to act arbitrarily. When the state has followed the appropriate procedure,
courts must not interfere with the state discharging its functions".
 Thus, due to the above mentioned shortcomings and the burden to save their
lives first, the police opened fire which has been protected and reiterated by the
hereinabove mentioned sections of CrPC and IPC.

 Thus, the counsel humbly submits that police are not guilty for murder of the
fateful accused.

14
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2. WHETHER ACT OF POLICE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT AND THEREBY HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FATEFUL ACCUSED?
& WHETHER SUCH A PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

 The counsel for respondent humbly submits that the act of police is not a
violation of fundamental right of the fateful accused & thus along with other
reasons mentioned below, the counsel most respectfully submits that this
petition is not maintainable.
 Section 46 CrPC applies to all persons accused of offenses under the Indian
Penal Code (‘IPC’) 1860 punishable with death or life imprisonment. Such
division comes under the umbrella of reasonable classification that is provided
under part III of our constitution. Further, it does not have any nexus with the
object of the section that every accused person must have access to a fair trial
thus defeating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21
says that every person had a right to life and liberty except in cases where such
liberty can be withdrawn according to a procedure established by law that has
to be fair and reasonable thus it could not be unjust or arbitrary.
2
 [Section 46(3) was interpreted to mean that ‘necessary means’ includes
causing the death of such persons who are accused of an offense punishable
with death or life imprisonment as it is of the serious nature.]
 A.14 of the Constitution of India states:
‘The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India.’
3
 [It was held that A.14 applies to substantive and procedural laws. The phrase
‘equal protection of laws’] has been interpreted to equality of treatment in
equal circumstances. Thus, equals must be treated alike, and it does not mean
unequal ought to be treated equally. It, then, must fulfil two criteria;
1. It must be based on an intelligible differentia, with some real and
substantial distinction which distinguishes persons or things together in the
class from others left out of it. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.

2
Harendra Kumar Deka vs. State of Assam (2008),

3
State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)

15
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 2. The differentia must bear a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the statute.
4
 [The Supreme Court while commenting on the legitimacy of encounters,
supports the submission in instant matter; that the act of police was procedure
established by law thus observed as follows –
“If the version of the police with respect to the incident in question were true
there could have been no question of any interference by Court. Nobody can
say that the police should wait till they are shot at. It is for the force on the
spot to decide when to act, how to act and where to act. It is not for the Court
to say how the criminals should be fought.”]
5
 [Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that
having read some media reports on police actions leading to death/ injury of
some accused persons in police custody, the petitioner has rushed to this court
by filing the present petition, without properly verifying the complete facts.
Under the circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner approaching this
Court by way of this petition merely seeking some publicity cannot be entirely
ruled out.]
6
 [In the case of reported in 2011, the Supreme Court has observed thus :-
Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be
sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which Court may proceed.
The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis
of which such a person claims the reliefs. Information furnished by him should
not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the
requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant
cannot approach the Court to have fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim
to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules
of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously.]
 Due to lack of petitioners furnishing sufficient and conclusive facts, the
counsels humbly submits that the petition may kindly be dismissed.

4
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India. 1997
5
Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 27 January, 2023
6
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another 7 SCC 639

16
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the fact stated, issues raised, arguments

advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that

1. That the Petition of the Petitioner may please to be dismissed.

2. Issue any necessary order/ directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good conscience.

And

For this, the Respondents as in duty bound shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT..

17
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT