Js Verma Petitioner

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 - TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
TEAM CODE: - JS VERMA
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2024

GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620023
THE CASE CONCERNING THE CHAIN SNATCHING AND THE RAPE AND
MURDER OF TRANSGENDER IN THE STATE OF MANASTHAN
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE OF MANASTHAN

Cr. O. P. Sr. No. _____of 2024
Varun …………………………………………………………………......……. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Manasthan…………………………………………….……………Respondent
Cr. O. P. Sr. No. _____of 2024
Veeradurai………………………………………….....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..……. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Manasthan………………………………………...………………. Respondent
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE OFFENCE MENTIONED IN THE FIR(S) IS MADE OUT?
2. WHETHER LEGAL PROCEEDING IN THE CHAIN SNATCHING CASE
COMPLIED WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?
3. WHETHER THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL VIOLATING ANY RIGHTS OF THE
OFFENDER?
4. WHETHER THE ARREST WARRANT ISSUED TO THE INVESTIGATION
OFFICER IS LEGALLY VALID?

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
1. JJ JUVENILE JUSTICE
2. AIR ALL INDIA REPORT
3. Art ARTICLE
4 BOM BOMBAY
5 CAL CALCUTTA
6 IEA INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
7 CRPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CODE
8 HC HIGH COURT
9 HCC HIGH COURT CASE
10 SC SUPREME COURT
11 SCC SUPREME COURT CASE
12 SCR SUPREME COURT

REPORTER
13 UOI UNION OF INDIA
14 V. VERSUS
15 ORS OTHERS
16 IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
17 SEC SECTION
18 & AND
19 U/S UNDER SECTION

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
• Convention on Rights of the Child on November 20, 1989.
LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
• Indian Penal Code ,1860
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1974
• Indian Evidence Act 1872
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act ,2015
• The Constitution of India
LEGAL MAXIMS
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
• Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
• Nulla poena sine leg
• Audi alteram partem
• Presumption of innocence
• Abuse of process
• Prima facie
• omnibus presumitur rite et solemniter esse acta.
• de minimis non curat lex
• salus populi suprema lex
• bona fides non patitur duplicatio
LEXICON;
1. Catherine Sounes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus. 40th Edn. 2006, Oxford
University Press.
2. Collins Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Edn. 2016, Collins.
3. B. A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn, 2009).
4. Garner Bryana, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edn.1981, West Group.
5. New International Webster’s comprehensive Dictionary (Encyclopaedia edn).
BOOKS REFERRED;
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 22nd Edition
3. Indian Penal Code, Basu, 15th Edition
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Tandon, 19th Edition
5. Andrew Ashworth, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
4
JOURNALS
• Efficacy of Juvenile Justice System in India: An Analytical Approach
By Simran Mandhyan Ajeenkya, D Y Patil University, School of Law
• CURRENT ISSUES IN JUVENILE JUSTICE IN INDIA
By Ved Kumari
ONLINE SOURCES
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.casemine.com/
LIST OF CASES REFERRED
1. Willson Abraham Chouriappa Vs State Of Maharashtra 1996(3)BOM CR163,
2. State Of U.P. vs Ram Gopal Saini AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1095
3. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
4. Ramdeo Rai Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1990 SC 1180
5. Chanabasappa S/O Shivanna Nagaralli ... vs The State Of Karnataka 2016 CRI. L. J.
388, 2015
6. Brathi Alias Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab 1991 AIR 318, 1990 SCR SUPL.
7. Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470;
8. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321
9. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2005(2) JCC 908
10. Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad (2007) 2 SCC 355
11. Saurabh Jalinder Nangre vs. Maharashtra AIR ONLINE 2018 BOM 1418
12. Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra [(1983) 2 SCC 96]
13. Ratan Singh vs State of Punjab 1980 AIR 84, 1980 SCR (1) 846,
14. Murli S. Deora vs Union of India 2001 (8) SCC 765
15. Salil Bali vs Union of India AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3743
16. Juvenile Justice Committee vs State of Tamil Nadu (2015)
17. Puneet S. vs. State of Karnataka (2019 SCC OnLine Kar 1835)
18. Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355
19. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217
20. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case 1978(1) SCC 248.
21. Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2001 SCC (Cri) 1546
22. Dharmender -Juvenile v. State of U.P. and others”, 2018(7) ADJ 864
23. Nagraj vs State Of Mysore 1964 SCR (3) 671

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Manasthan that the Petitions filed by
Varun and Veeradurai under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is considered by
the Hon’ble court as interconnected and the hearing is posted on today (16.03.2024)
Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories.
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,
Saving of inherent powers of High Court
“Nothing in the Code of criminal procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order
under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice”

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
CHAIN SNATCHING CASE
On 8th August 2023, while Marina was walking towards that jewelry shop, the snatchers
came from behind and tried to snatch her chain. CCTV footage was taken from a nearby shop
surveillance camera by police. A video had emerged on wherein a woman is seen falling onto
road and dragged when two men on a moving motorcycle snatched her jewels. Town Police
filed a FIR under section 379 and section 397 of IPC and took the statement from Marina.
TRANSGENDER MURDER CASE
On 16th August, Karavalur Police received a complaint about missing of Zena, a transgender
not found in last two days. On 17th August an unidentified half-burnt body was found in the
forest area of Parvatha and an abandoned motorcycle was recovered from the forest area of
Parvatha, 1 km from the scene of crime. Karavalur police circulated the information. Town
Police confirmed that the motorcycle relates to Maria snatching case. Tracing the motorcycle,
Karavalur police caught Varun and inquired him.
INVESTIGATION AND COURT PROCEEDINGS
During the interrogation he revealed that the motorbike was borrowed by Tarun. The Autopsy
report reveals that she was a 16 to 17 years transgender who was sexually abused before her
death.Karavalur police took the statement given by Varun and there was a compliant regarding
missing of Zena, the police registered a FIR under section 377 and section 302 of IPC. On 23rd
August, town police arrested Varun as accused of the chain snatching case and produced him
before the Court. Varun produced his statement in front of the magistrate. Marina lost her life
on 28th August. This turned a chain snatching case into murder case. Section 302 inserted in
the FIR. The Court cancelled the bail for Varun on 29th August 2023. On behalf of Varun a
petition was filed in the High Court under 482 of Cr.P.C to challenge the legal proceedings.
The Court observed that things in the Zena case were violations and inappropriate legal
proceedings on the Police side, issued a warrant to arrest the investigation officer in the Zena
case. Veeradurai, Investigation Officer of Zena case, filed a petition under section 482 of
Cr.P.C to challenge the arrest warrant issued against him. The High Court considered the above
two petitions to be interconnected as the chain of occurrence, hear the petitions collectively
and hearing is posted on 16.03.2024.

7
ISSUE RAISED
It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Manasthan, that following are the issues
framed by the Hon'ble court in the case between Petitioners Varun and Veeradurai and
Respondent the state of Manasthan

3. WHETHER THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL VIOLATING ANY RIGHTS OF

THE OFFENDER?


8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
• The counsel for petitioners humbly submits before the hon’ble high court that the FIR(s)
made out are not in relation with the offence that took place.
• Varun had section 379 and section 397 of IPC registered on him. The ingredients of
section 397 and section 302 of IPC are not found in the offence that is committed by
Varun.
• Absence of direct involvement: Varun asserts that he did not actively participate in the
chain snatching incident and was merely riding the motorcycle at Tarun's behest.
• There is lack of criminal intent: Varun claims that he did not have the requisite
criminal intent to commit the offense and was coerced into participating by Tarun.
• There is no prior knowledge: Varun asserts that he had no prior knowledge of
Tarun's criminal intentions and was unaware of his friend's plan to snatch the chain.
• There was an involvement of Duress and Coercion for personal safety: Varun said
that he acted under duress and coercion, fearing harm from the potential mob if he
refused to comply with Tarun's commands. The element of fear coerced him into
complying with Tarun's actions.
• Youth and Vulnerability: Varun, being a minor is more vulnerable and suspectable to
influence, especially from older individuals like Tarun. Varun comes from a single
household where he and his father live. His mother has died in his childhood and
Varun has no siblings. He was highly influenced by Tarun who had various
motorcycles and helped him meet his needs.
• There is mistaken belief: Varun contends that he mistakenly believed Tarun's actions
were harmless and nothing had been stolen until it was too late to intervene.
• There is unwilling participation: Varun maintains that he was an unwilling participant
in the criminal act. His confession of being shocked and scared at Tarun's sudden
move to snatch a chain suggests he did not willingly engage in criminal activity.
Varun's lack of criminal history further supports this claim.
• Cause of death was not only due to the injuries sustained by the chain snatching.

9
• Marina already had a history of hospitalization. She was discharged with an advice of
complete rest, but she still overexerted herself by walking to the Jewelry shop every
day.
• Though the injuries did cause her to end up in the hospital. It was a combination of
the injuries and prior illness that led to her death.
• There is a violation by not granting bail.

• The counsel humbly submits before the hon’ble high court that the legal proceedings in
the chain snatching case did not compile with the criminal justice system intended for
minors.
• Varun is a 17-year student who is in high secondary class, and he is applicable to the
juvenile justice act 2015.
• Under the juvenile justice act 2015, cases involving juveniles between the age groups
of 16-18 who have committed offences should have a preliminary assessment then only
can they be assigned which court to have the trial.
• The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, and other agencies while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following fundamental
principles
• Bringing a minor before a regular magistrate instead of the Juvenile Justice Board is a
violation of the specific provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates the
establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards for dealing with cases involving juveniles.
• Even if the offence is non bailable he must be brought before the JJ board,
• Even in the F.I.R registered has a heinous offence, he is to be brought before the JJ
board.
• As per section 14, Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law clause (3) of
JJ act: (3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall
be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first
production of the child before the Board.
• There must have been a preliminary assessment into offence registered
• The magistrate does not have certain powers that are given to children’s court for
trialing of minor.

10
• The Act has laid down specific procedures, sections, safeguards and proceedings to be
followed when dealing with juveniles, which includes Juvenile Justice Boards and
special officers which are better equipped to handle cases involving minors
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted on November 20, 1989, is
applicable to Himalta.

OFFENDER?
• It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that cancellation of bail violates the
rights of Varun.
• The cancellation of bail challenges this presumption, as it implies a prejudgment of
guilt before a fair trial.
• The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
• Varun has a right to enjoy his liberty unless there are compelling reasons for its
revocation.
• Varun, if released on bail, poses no significant risk of interfering with the justice
system.
• He willingly participated in every interrogation and court proceeding.
• There should be a following of rules of Juvenile Justice Act.
• Cancellation of bail may result in Varun being detained in a manner detrimental to his
rehabilitation, education, and well-being.

• It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the arrest warrant issued to the
investigation officer is not legally valid.
• The issuance of the arrest warrant is legally invalid to commit procedural errors
• There is insufficient evidence.
• The arrest warrant violates the Investigation Officer's fundamental rights.
• Arresting the Investigation Officer prejudice against the fair trial.
• The Investigation Officer is entitled to legal immunity
• There is no motive for mishandling the case.
• Police officers are afforded discretion in their investigative actions.

11
AGRUMENTS ADVANCED
The counsel for petitioners humbly submits that the offence mentioned in FIR(s) is not made
out.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that Varun, the petitioner, has been falsely implicated in
the present case and has not committed any offence alleged in F.I.R.
• Varun has section 379, section 397 and section 302 of Indian Penal code 1860 registered
on him.
• Section 397 is as follows:
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes
grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Ingredients
Simplified Explanation of Section 397: If a person commits a robbery or dacoity (banditry)
and during the act either:
• Uses a weapon that could kill someone,

• Causes serious injury to someone,
• Tries to kill someone, or
• Tries to seriously injure someone,
then the minimum jail time for this person will be seven years.
As per the CCTV footage that was taken from a nearby shop surveillance camera by police and
circulated to news channels which became viral. wherein a woman can be seen falling face-first
onto road and dragged when two men on a moving motorcycle snatched her jewels.
There is no indication of deadly weapon used as per the footage given by the CCTV. This
evidence can be used in court proceeding as per section 65B of the Indian evidence act
• A perusal of S. 397, IPC would show that the aforesaid section would only have
application if the evidence were that during commission of robbery or dacoity, 'the

12
offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to
cause death or grievous hurt to any person."
• 1
Section 397, IPC contains the principle of individual liability.
• In the case Jwala Prasad vs State of Chhattisgarh -any other overt act, such as
brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring
the offender within the ambit of Section 397 of the Penal Code."
• Varun is a minor of 17 years who is still in higher secondary class, he is not aware that
the crime has been committed. The main accused Tarun has fled and is still not brought
before the court.
• The confession of Varun given before the magistrate clearly states that he had trusted
his friend Tarun and was not able to say no. After the offence had taken place, his mind
was in an ‘imbalanced state’.
• He stated the following in front of magistrate:
‘I was shocked and don’t know what to do. My mind is totally imbalanced. I didn’t expect this
cruel activity from him. I can’t stop him at the same time I am not able to stop the motorcycle
also. I was very much scared that the mob will attack me if once stopped. So that, I simply sped
up the motorcycle and there was nothing in my mind beyond that. Even I don’t know what
happened behind me. I stopped the motorcycle only near to my home. My body was shivering
and I don’t know what to do.’
• As a child he was not able to comprehend what to do after this occurrence and was not
able to ask for help from his father who was single as he had lost his mother in
childhood. He was a gullible young child who listened to his friend and was not able to
say anything against his friend Tarun. As he stated :
‘I was not in position of advising or correcting him, because I was in the position not to
understand what was happened and even I was very young to him. Moreover, he told me that
he had not snatched the chain after he seen her face of old women, as she looked to be very
sad. Then only my breath becomes normal. I was convinced that nothing had happened to that
old woman and I believed she was safe with her chain’
1
Willson Abraham Chouriappa Vs State Of Maharashtra 1996(3)BOM CR163,

13
• After the police investigation found the relation between the motorbike and Varun. He
gave the confession and said that he was not aware of the chain being snatched by Tarun.
• The definition of murder as per section 300 of IPC is
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—

1. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. 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
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4. 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.
• Section 302 is as follows:
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine.
The ingredients of murder are:
Intention to Cause Death (Clause 1):
• The act causing death must be done with the intention of causing death. The accused
must have a clear and conscious desire to cause the death of the victim.
Knowledge of Imminently Dangerous Act (Clause 2):
• The act causing death is murder if the accused knows that it is imminently dangerous
and is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The accused
commits the act without any excuse for taking the risk.
Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Sufficient to Cause Death (Clause 3):
• The act causing death is murder if it is committed with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

14
• 2In the case of State Of U.P. vs Ram Gopal Saini on 2 June, 2020
they considered the reasoning given by learned trial judge for holding the accused-appellant
guilty of committing murder based on medical evidence, the testimonies of the complainant
along with other prosecution witnesses and the adverse inference drawn from the absence of
accused after the incident, not acceptable. The case is totally of circumstantial evidence.
• 3
The counsel, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in Section 299 of the
Penal Code.
• In the case of Jahangir Seikh @ Naga Seikh vs The State Of West Bengal on 29
March, 2016
The essential ingredients of commissioning of offence by the appellant punishable under the
provision of Section 307 of the I.P.C. was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The FIR
of 307 was quashed in this case.
• The counsel likes to submit that the ingredients of section 300 which specifies murder
are not met in this case.
KEY POINTS
1. Absence of direct involvement: Varun asserts that he did not actively participate in the
chain snatching incident and was merely riding the motorcycle at Tarun's behest.
• Using the Legal Maxim: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (The act is not
culpable unless the mind is guilty).
2. There is lack of criminal intent: Varun claims that he did not have the requisite criminal
intent to commit the offense and was coerced into participating by Tarun.
• There is no guilt mind as per the Legal Maxim: "Mens rea"

• In the case of Gurusiddappa Gouda S/O Amaraappagouda ... vs The State Of
Karnataka on 30 July, 2020 which states;
2 State Of U.P. vs Ram Gopal Saini AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1095
3 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

15
The intention is to be ascertained from other circumstances. Because intention, which is state
of mind, can never be precisely proved by direct evidence as a fact, it can only be deduced or
interred from other facts. Some of the factors are the nature of weapons, the place where the
injuries were inflicted, the nature of the injuries caused and the opportunity available which
the accused gets. So when the accused even though having weapon in his hand inflicted a
minor injuries and there cannot be any intention to cause any murder. Even the injuries are
simple in nature and it is not grievous also.
3. There is no prior knowledge: Varun asserts that he had no prior knowledge of Tarun's
criminal intentions and was unaware of his friend's plan to snatch the chain.
• 4
Apex Court in Ramdeo Rai Yadav Vs. State of Bihar held that conviction of the
accused under section 302 of the I.P.C. is maintainable. However, to do so, it must be
shown that the accused had committed the murder or shared common intention
altogether to do so
4. There was an involvement of Duress and Coercion for personal safety: Varun said that
he acted under duress and coercion, fearing harm from the potential mob if he refused to
comply with Tarun's commands. The element of fear coerced him into complying with
Tarun's actions.
• He ran away from the scene as he feared a mob would attack him and he was
unaware of the chain being snatched from Marina’s neck as he concentrated on getting
out of that situation.
• His adrenaline kicked in that situation, and he fled without any thought, it was a
body’s reflex to save himself from a harmful situation. The legal maxim which is used
is: "Necessitas non habet legem" (Necessity knows no law)
• He was reassured by Tarun that Tarun did not snatch the chain as he felt pity for the
old. He was gullible and fell for a lie.
• Due to the adrenaline fused situation, he had no awareness of his surroundings or the
consequences of his escaping, in that situation he chose flight and with the police
investigation only did he know the true nature of what happened.
5. Youth and vulnerability:
4 Ramdeo Rai Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1990 SC 1180

16
• Varun, being a minor is more vulnerable and suspectable to influence, especially

from older individuals like Tarun. Varun comes from a single household where he and
his father live. His mother has died in his childhood and Varun has no siblings. He
was highly influenced by Tarun who had various motorcycles and helped him meet
his needs.
• Using the legal maxim: "In dubio pro reo" (In doubt, for the accused).
• The question arises whether Varun is the main accused, the person who involved
Varun and made the plan to snatch is Tarun, who is yet to be apprehended. Varun was
dragged into the crime unwillingly and caught up in its consequences.
6. There is mistaken belief:
• Varun contends that he mistakenly believed Tarun's actions were harmless and
nothing had been stolen until it was too late to intervene.
7. There is unwilling participation:
• Varun maintains that he was an unwilling participant in the criminal act. His
confession of being shocked and scared at Tarun's sudden move to snatch a chain
suggests he did not willingly engage in criminal activity. Varun's lack of criminal
history further supports this claim.
8. Cause of death was not only due to the injuries sustained by the chain snatching.
• Marina already had a history of hospitalization. She was discharged with an advice of
complete rest, but she still overexerted herself by walking to the Jewelry shop every
day.
• Though the injuries did cause her to end up in the hospital. It was a combination of the
injuries and prior illness that led to her death.
• ‘5Intention or knowledge has to be ascertained from the nature of injuries suffered by
the victim’.
• In case of Smt. Ragi Bai vs State on 12 January, 2010
None of the injuries is found to have been inflicted upon vital part of the body and, as per the
opinion of the medical board, the deceased died due to shock caused by severe bleeding;
5 Chanabasappa S/O Shivanna Nagaralli ... vs The State Of Karnataka 2016 CRI. L. J. 388, 2015

17
meaning thereby, as per the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report, it can be said that
no conviction can be made for offence under Section 302, I.P.C.
9. There is a violation by not granting bail.
• The cancellation of Varun’s bail was unjustified and amounted to a violation of his
fundamental rights, especially considering his age and circumstances.
• Using the legal maxim: "Bail is a right, not a punishment."
• As per Article 21 of the Constitution of India (protection of life and personal
liberty).
10. There is prejudicial proceedings: the counsel asserts that the elevation of the case to a
murder charge following Marina's death unfairly prejudiced Varun and disregarded his
innocence until proven guilty.
• Using the legal maxim: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" (Let justice be done though the
heavens fall).
• In the case of Pawan @ Diggi vs State on 24 January, 2014
False implication of any person that too at the instance of the police without their being
incriminating evidence to support the same has to be viewed very seriously against the police
officials involved in such a murky process and a false implication even of a person who may
be an accused of committing some other offences, stands on the same footings.
• 6
In the case of Brathi Alias Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 October 1990
The matter of appreciation of the evidence, the powers of the appellate Court are as wide as
that of the trial court.. It is entitled to go into the entire evidence and all relevant
circumstances to arrive at its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
general principle of criminal liability is that it is primarily attached to the person who
commits an offence, and it is only such a person that can be held guilty and punished for the
offence.
• In Biswajit Roy @ Buro Roy vs The State of West Bengal -when counsel has failed
to establish the chain of circumstances which could link the appellant with the crime.
6 Brathi Alias Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab 1991 AIR 318, 1990 SCR SUPL.

18
The court below convicted the appellant of a mere superfluous approach without in-
depth analysis of the relevant facts. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed
• In the case Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 8 May, 2018
In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the appellants are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for seven years and the appeals are partly allowed.
• In State vs Imran- when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved
which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence,
although he is not charged with it".
• In the case of 7Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the court went a little
deeper to determine the rarest of the rare cases. It laid down certain guidelines relating
to how the murder was committed, the motive for murder, the intensity of the crime,
and the anti-social nature of the crime.
• In the case of State of U.P v. Kapil Deo & Anr. (1991), the respondents (Kapil Deo
& Anr.) were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for causing
the death of their domestic help.The Court observed that the main accused was not the
only person present during the crime scene .To this, the Court opined that there was
no evidence to show the three accused had committed the murder in furtherance of
common intention. Hence, the High Court acquitted the main accused from the charge
of section 302 and also acquitted the remaining three persons who were accused under
Section 302 read with Section 34.
• These arguments collectively aim to establish that Varun's involvement in the offense
alleged in the FIR(s) is not substantiated and that he should not be held as the main
accused in offences led by Tarun.
11.The FIR that was filed by police in Zena’s case is under section 377
377. Unnatural offences. —

• Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
7 Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470;

19
• This section continues to be relevant in the act of non-consensual sex of people.

• In the 8Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India, while
partially striking down Section 377, clarified that the decision only pertains to
consensual adult sexual acts. The court made it clear that non-consensual and coercive
acts, including those involving minors, would still be treated as offenses under the law.
The specific sentence from the judgment is as follows:
• "The High Court was not right in reading down Section 377 so as to make it inapplicable
to non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex or penile non-vaginal sex involving minors."
• Full investigation of Zena’ s murder case is not yet complete as the accused Tarun is
not yet brought before the court. His age and relation with Zena are still not verified
and proved before the court.
8 Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321

20
2.WHETHER LEGAL PROCEEDING IN THE CHAIN SNATCHING CASE

• It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the legal proceeding in the chain
snatching case does not comply with the criminal justice system intended for minors.
• The main aim of legal proceedings is to cover actions taken within the legal system to
enforce rights, resolve disputes, or seek justice.
Key Points
1. In this case Varun, the petitioner is a minor and he is applicable to juvenile justice
act 2015
• As per section 2 clause (12) and clause (13)
• (12) "child" means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age;
• (13) "child" in conflict with law means a child who is alleged or found to have
committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of
commission of such offence;
• Even if there was any doubt regarding age, they should have transferred to JJ board .
• In the case of Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1958):
In this case, the court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry to determine the age of the
accused to ascertain whether he falls under the definition of a juvenile.
• Another such case is State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shyam Singh (1971):
The court, in this case, highlighted the importance of age determination and ordered a bone
ossification test to determine the age of the accused.
• 9
If there is doubt about the age of the accused, the benefit should go to the accused,
and the case should be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board for determination of
age.
2.Under section 3 of the JJ act 2015: General principles to be followed in administration

of Act.
9 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2005(2) JCC 908

21
• The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, and other agencies, as the
case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the
following fundamental principles, namely: —
I. Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be innocent of
any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.
II. Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate
in all processes and decisions affecting his interest and the child’s views shall be taken
into consideration with due regard to the age and maturity of the child.
III. Principle of institutionalization: as a measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in
institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
IV. Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice system
shall have the right to be re-united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to
the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the
purview of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest
V. Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system
should be erased except in special circumstances..
VI. Principle of diversion: Measures for dealing with children in conflict with law without
resorting to judicial proceedings shall be promoted unless it is in the best interest of the
child or the society as a whole.
VII. Principles of natural justice: Basic procedural standards of fairness shall be adhered
to, including the right to a fair hearing, rule against bias and the right to review, by all
persons or bodies, acting in a judicial capacity under this Act.
3.Violation of Juvenile Justice Act:
• Bringing a minor before a regular magistrate instead of the Juvenile Justice Board is a
violation of the specific provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates the
establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards for dealing with cases involving juveniles.
• The fact that he was brought before a magistrate and an order was passed by the court
is violative of section 9 of JJ act which states:
Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate who has not been empowered under this Act.
(1) When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act is of
the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him is a

22
child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along
with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.
• Clause 3 of this section specifies that any orders passed by the court have no effect.
(3) If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date
of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing
appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to
have no effect.
It was held in the case of 10Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad (2007) 2 SCC
355 that an order passed by a magistrate beyond his jurisdiction would be considered void ab
initio
4.Even if the offence is non bailable, he must be brought before the JJ board,
• As per section 12: Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law:
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or
non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail
with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care
of any fit person.
5.Even in the F.I.R registered has a heinous offence, he is to be brought before the JJ
board.
• As per section 14, Inquiry by Board regarding child in conflict with law clause (3) of JJ
act:
(3) A preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of
by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child
before the Board.
• In the case Shivam(minor) v. State of U.P and Anr. (2019), the appellant Shivam
was charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant argued that he
10 Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad (2007) 2 SCC 355
23
is a juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board has determined his age as below 18 years.
So he argued that he was falsely implicated and hence sought bail. The Court referred
to Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015, which states that
the Juvenile Justice Board must conduct an inquiry examining the circumstances of
the offence committed by the child who has attained 16 years and is charged with a
heinous crime. In the case, the appellant-accused does not have any specific role in the
offence. Hence the Court granted bail to the appellant.
• In the case of 11Saurabh Jalinder Nangre vs. Maharashtra (2018), this was
demonstrated. The Bombay High Court was hearing a writ petition in this case, which
raised the question of whether the juvenile should be sent to children’s court owing to
the crime being attempted murder, which is punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court determined that “in the present instance, all of the
petitioners, despite being between the ages of 16 and 18, have not committed heinous
crimes and, thus, their case is not covered under Section 15 of the 2015 Act and
therefore the case cannot be moved to Children’s Court. As a result, the Sangli
Juvenile Justice Board will handle the investigation.”
• In the case Gaurav Jain vs Union of India The law should not discriminate against
juvenile offenders based on the nature of the crime. The court held that every juvenile
offender should be given an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration, regardless
of the severity of the crime.
• 12
A child in need of care and protection is entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• 13Ratan Singh vs State of Punjab (1984):
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a juvenile offender cannot be
sentenced to death or life imprisonment as such sentences are prohibited under the
Juvenile Justice Act.
• 14
Murli S. Deora vs Union of India(2001):
In this case, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to set up a separate
juvenile justice system for the care and protection of children in conflict with the law.
11 Saurabh Jalinder Nangre vs. Maharashtra AIR ONLINE 2018 BOM 1418
12 Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra [(1983) 2 SCC 96]
13 Ratan Singh vs State of Punjab 1980 AIR 84, 1980 SCR (1) 846,
14 Murli S. Deora vs Union of India 2001 (8) SCC 765

24
• 15
The right to legal aid is an important right for children in conflict with the law and
that they should be provided with legal assistance at every stage of the legal process.
• J.J. vs State of Haryana case, in which the Supreme Court held that a juvenile
cannot be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, even for the most heinous crimes.
• 16
In the case of Juvenile Justice Committee vs State of Tamil Nadu (2015) The
government should focus on their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
• 17
The Karnataka High Court held that only the Juvenile Justice Board has the power
to decide whether an offence committed by a juvenile is heinous or not.
5.There must have been a preliminary assessment into offence registered
• As per section 15: Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board:

• (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has
completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary
assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,
ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which
he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the
period specified in section 14.
6. The magistrate does not have certain powers that are given to children’s court for
trialing of minor.
• As per section 19 which states, Powers of Children’s Court:
(1) After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15, the Childrens
Court may decide that:
• (i) there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial subject to
15 Salil Bali vs Union of India AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3743

16 Juvenile Justice Committee vs State of Tamil Nadu (2015)
17 Puneet S. vs. State of Karnataka (2019 SCC OnLine Kar 1835)

25
the provisions of this section and section 21, considering the special needs of the child,
the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere;
• (ii) there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and may conduct an inquiry as a
Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of section 18.
• As per section 52 of IPC “Good faith”.—
Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed
without due care and attention.
7.The magistrate should be aware of the legal proceeding concerning juveniles.
• As in case Amit Yadav Alias Monu Alias Bebo vs State Of U.P. And Another on
22 January, 2016
The revisionist, by means of the instant revision has challenged the legality and correctness of
both these orders dated 12.3.2015 and 12.8.2014, mainly on the ground that even though the
revisionist is undisputedly a juvenile but both the courts below, without keeping in view the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, have passed the
impugned orders.
Above pronouncements are fully applicable to the facts of this revision. The impugned orders
have been passed by both the Courts below merely on the basis of presumption and guess work
without any substance.
• In 18Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355, where it
was held that an order passed by a magistrate beyond his jurisdiction would be
considered void ab initio. It was opined that “where a Court takes upon itself to exercise
a jurisdiction it has not possessed its decision amounts to nothing”....
• As per section 94 of JJ act -(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board,
based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of
this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child,
the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as
nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the
case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
• Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the
Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
18 Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355

26
• In the case of Rahulkumar @ Pappu Kamleshbhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on

20 September, 2017
• The Gujarat High Court recently rapped a lower Court for sending a juvenile
delinquent to jail and treating him as an adult under the law, despite having been
apprised of the fact of him being a juvenile.Terming the incident as “unfortunate”,
Justice G.R. Udhwani observed, “It is unfortunate that the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Talod was unmindful of the provisions of the juvenile justice act.
8. Proper Procedure and Safeguards:
• The Act has laid down specific procedures, sections, safeguards and proceedings to be
followed when dealing with juveniles, which includes Juvenile Justice Boards and
special officers which are better equipped to handle cases involving minors
• Like section 21 Order that may not be passed against a child in conflict with law:
• Section 22. Proceeding under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure not to
apply against child:
• Section 23. No joint proceedings of child in conflict with law and person not a child.
9. Members who are equipped to deal with special cases involving minors
• The members of the Juvenile Justice Board are specifically trained to understand the
unique needs and circumstances of juveniles, and their decisions are guided by a focus
on rehabilitation and social reintegration of juveniles,
• The Juvenile Justice Boards are better positioned to make decisions that align with
these objectives.
10. JJ board has remedies that help in welfare of child and prevent crime being repeated.
• Like as per section 18 of JJ act clause (e) , (f) and (g)

• e) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care
of any parent, guardian or fit person, on such parent, guardian or fit person
• (f) direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the
care and supervision of any fit facility for ensuring the good behaviour and childs well-
being for any period not exceeding three years;
• (g) direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three
years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill etc

27
In this proceeding all the necessary safeguards provided to minors through Juvenile
Justice act to Varun have been disregarded and violated.
11. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted on November 20, 1989, is
applicable to Himalta.
• Himalta is a signatory to the CRC and ratified it on December 11, 1992. As a result, the
provisions of the CRC are legally binding on Himalta
• It is obligated to take measures to ensure that the rights and principles outlined in the
convention are respected and upheld for children within its jurisdiction.
• The CRC covers a wide range of rights for children, including the right to life, survival,
and development, protection from exploitation and abuse, and participation in decisions
that affect them.
• Himalta’s commitment to the CRC reflects its acknowledgment of the importance of
safeguarding and promoting the rights of children.
• The juvenile justice act 2000 and the juvenile justice act 2015 are clear indication of
that.
• A day after Delhi Juvenile Board ruled that the most brutal culprit in the gangrape case
was a minor leading to demand for lowering the age ceiling for juveniles, Justice J.S.
Verma vetoed the idea outright. He also said that these sexual offences are not
necessarily for satisfying lust.
• Justice Verma , who headed the committee to look into laws relating to sex offences in
the aftermath of the gangrape, told India Today, "We did consider, however, a general
lowering of the juvenile age. The research and the statistics in this area, as well as our
own experience shows that it was not viable. Even the women's organisations, most of
them were of the view that it was not desirable. And you see you can't make a
generalisation."
• These committee and following of convention show that there is a need to be mindful
of child who has committed crime.

28

OFFENDER?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that cancellation of bail violates the rights of
the offender.
Key Points
1.There should be a presumption of innocence:
• Varun has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The
cancellation of bail challenges this presumption, as it implies a pre-judgment of guilt
before a fair trial.
2.Right to liberty:
• The right to personal liberty is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
Varun, having been granted bail, has a right to enjoy his liberty unless there are
compelling reasons for its revocation.
• As per section 50, Cr. P.C. which is a corollary to Article 22, Clause (1) and (5) of
the Constitution of India, enacts, that the persons arrested should be informed of the
ground of arrest, and of right to bail. For the custody to be a legal, a person may not
be held in custody for more than 15 days
3.Change in circumstances:
• The reasons cited for cancellation are not genuinely impactful.
• The main cause of her death was a combination of grievous hurt and her prior
hospitalization.
4. No risk of interference with justice:
• Varun, if released on bail, poses no significant risk of interfering with the justice
system.
• He willingly participated in every interrogation and court proceeding.
5. There should be a following of rules of Juvenile Justice Act:
• Varun is 17 years old, the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act should be applied.
Special considerations for juveniles, including rehabilitation and protection of rights,
should be considered before canceling bail.
6.There is no flight risk:
• Varun has cooperated with the legal proceedings and is unlikely to flee, this is
emphasized as a reason why his bail should not be canceled.
• He willingly gone to each proceeding and provided crucial evidence in Zena’s case.
29
7. There is irreparable harm to Varun's rehabilitation:

• Cancellation of bail may result in Varun being detained in a manner detrimental to his
rehabilitation, education, and well-being.
• The rights of the accused begin from the time of his arrest. The Constitution of India
under Article 22 provides for the protection of the arrested person to the extent that he
has a right to be informed of the reason for arrest and he must be produced before the
nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours.
• Article 22 (1) also provides that he shall be entitled to consult and to be defended by a
legal practitioner of his choice .
8. There should be a non-discrimination principle:
• The counsel emphasizes that Varun's status as a juvenile should be considered, and he
should be treated in a manner different from adult offenders.
• Justice P.N. Bhagwati, In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar, 19th February 1979, the court held that it is a crying shame on the Judicial
System that keeps men, women and children behind bars without the commencement
of trail
• Article 14 of the constitution gives Right to Equality to its citizens. It states that "The
State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India."
• In the 19Indira Sawhney case Article 14 has been taken under the basic structure
doctrine, it is also a basic fundamental right “
• In the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court held that the State must act
reasonably and fairly and that the principles of natural justice must be followed in all
State actions.
• In the 20Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978) SC held that – the 'procedure
established by law' within the meaning of Article 21 must be 'right and just and fair'
and 'not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive' otherwise, it would be no procedure at all
and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied
19 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India 992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217

20 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case 1978(1) SCC 248.
30
• .21It is held that all the positive facts must be proven by the counsel however, it is not
responsible to prove negative facts that something which is impossible or which is not
within the knowledge of the party.
• The presumption of innocence is a concept which means every person or an
individual is innocent until proven guilty
• In 22Dharmender -Juvenile v. State of U.P. and others”, 2018(7) ADJ 864, wherein
it was observed as under: - In case the revisionist was an adult and stood charged of
the offence that he faces with weak circumstantial evidence of last seen and
confession to the police, in all probability, it would have entitled him to bail pending
trial. If on the kind of evidence forthcoming an adult would be entitled to bail,
denying bail to a child in conflict with law may be denying the juvenile/ child in
conflict with law the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
9. As per section 12 of JJ act: Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged
to be in conflict with law:
• It talks about how bail should be given to child with or without surety.
21 Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2001 SCC (Cri) 1546
22 Dharmender -Juvenile v. State of U.P. and others”, 2018(7) ADJ 864
31

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the arrest warrant issued to the
investigation officer is not legally valid.
1. There is absence of direct involvement in crime
• The Investigation Officer (IO) was not directly involved in the commission of the
alleged offense and thus cannot be held personally liable.
• Using legal maxim: "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (The act is not culpable
unless the mind is guilty).
2. Lack of evidence of wrongdoing:
• There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the IO committed any criminal act
or misconduct warranting arrest.
• Using legal maxim: "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" (The burden of
proof lies with the one who asserts, not the one who denies).
3. No grounds for arrest:
• The issuance of the arrest warrant was arbitrary and lacked reasonable grounds, as
required by law.
• Using legal maxim: "Nulla poena sine lege" (No punishment without law).
4. Violation of Procedural Safeguards:
• The arrest warrant was issued without following proper legal procedures and
safeguards, depriving the IO of his rights.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Protection of life and personal liberty).
• Using the legal maxim: "Audi alteram partem" (Hear the other side)
5. Presumption of Innocence:
• The IO is presumed innocent until proven guilty and should not be subject to arrest
without sufficient evidence.
• In relation with section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Burden of proof as to
particular fact).
• Using legal maxim: "Presumption of innocence".
6. No act of omission or commission:

• The IO did not commit any act of omission or commission that would justify his arrest
under the law.
32
• Using legal maxim: "Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" (The act is not
culpable unless the mind is guilty).
• In relation with Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Right to equality before law).
• Using legal maxim: "Abuse of process".
8. No Prima Facie Case:
• There is no prima facie case against the IO, and thus the arrest warrant is unwarranted.
• Using Legal Maxim: "Prima facie".
9. Interference with official duties:
• There is potential interference with the IO's official duties resulting from his arrest,
which could hinder the progress of ongoing investigations.
10. There is violation of principles of natural justice:
• The issuance of the arrest warrant without affording the IO an opportunity to be heard
violates the principles of natural justice.
11.There is Presumption of Regularity:
• The investigation officer's actions are regular and in accordance with the law
• Aligning with the maxim "omnibus presumitur rite et solemniter esse acta."
12.There is Absence of Gross Negligence:
• Even if there were mistakes made during the investigation, they do not rise to the level
of gross negligence or misconduct warranting an arrest warrant. This adheres to the
principle of "negligence must be gross to warrant intervention."
13.Police Discretion:
• Police officers are afforded discretion in their investigative actions, and the mere
exercise of discretion, even if it leads to mistakes, does not constitute criminal conduct,
as per the maxim "de minimis non curat lex" (the law does not concern itself with
trifles).
14.Lack of Prejudice:
• Any errors or missteps made by the investigation officer did not result in prejudice to
the administration of justice or the rights of the accused, in line with the legal principle
of "no harm, no foul."
15.Public Interest:
• Arresting the investigation officer may undermine public trust in law enforcement and
deter officers from diligently performing their duties, contrary to the public interest, as

33
recognized by the maxim "salus populi suprema lex" (the welfare of the people is the
supreme law).
16.Professional Discretion:
The investigation officer exercised professional discretion in handling the case, and his
decisions, even if deemed erroneous in hindsight, were made in good faith and in the interest
of justice, as per the legal maxim "bona fides non patitur duplicatio" (good faith does not allow
duplicity)
• Section 197 of CrPC provides protection from prosecution for public servants acting
in good faith.
17.Scope of Investigation:
• The Investigation Officer's role may be limited to procedural aspects of the case and
holding them personally liable for alleged procedural lapses may be unjustified.
18.Preservation of Evidence: Arresting the Investigation Officer could hinder the
preservation and collection of evidence crucial to the case, thus undermining the investigation.
• In case of 23Nagraj vs State Of Mysore on 8 May, 1963
• The appellant as Sub- Inspector of Police could be dismissed by the State Government
alone and that, therefore, sanction under s. 197 of the Code was necessary for his
prosecution of the offences supposed to have been committed in the discharge of his
duty. (2) That a police officer cannot be prosecuted without a sanction from the State
Government for an offence which the police officer alleges, took place during the
course of performance of duties under Ch. IX of the Code.
23 Nagraj vs State Of Mysore 1964 SCR (3) 671

34
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY
PRAYED AND IMPLORED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE
OF MANASTHAN THAT IT MAY BE GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO ADJUDICATE
BY ISSUING AN APPROPRIATE DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THIS CRIMINAL
PETITION BEFORE THE COURT THAT:
1. To the QUASH the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner.

2. To Seek an order for the IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER from
custody.
3. To Request the GRANT OF BAIL OR ANTICIPATORY BAIL to the petitioner
4. To Seek a declaration from the court that the actions of the authorities, including the
issuance of the arrest warrant, were UNLAWFUL AND VIOLATED THE
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS.
5. To Pray for compensation or damages for any harm or injury suffered by the petitioner
as a result of the wrongful arrest or detention.
6. To grant costs and legal expenses incurred during the litigation, considering the merit
of the company's position and the need for fair compensation.
ALSO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS
FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
For this act of Kindness, the PETITIONER shall be duty bound forever to pray.
All of which is humbly prayed,
Counsel appearing on behalf of the PETITIONER

35

Js Verma Petitioner

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

Js Verma Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 - TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

TEAM CODE: - JS VERMA

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE OF MANASTHAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

S.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

2. AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

6 IEA INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

7 CRPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

9 HCC HIGH COURT CASE

11 SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

12 SCR SUPREME COURT

16 IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

19 U/S UNDER SECTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,

Saving of inherent powers of High Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

CHAIN SNATCHING CASE

TRANSGENDER MURDER CASE

INVESTIGATION AND COURT PROCEEDINGS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

1. WHETHER THE OFFENCE MENTIONED IN THE FIR(S) IS MADE OUT?

2. WHETHER LEGAL PROCEEDING IN THE CHAIN SNATCHING CASE

3. WHETHER THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL VIOLATING ANY RIGHTS OF

4. WHETHER THE ARREST WARRANT ISSUED TO THE INVESTIGATION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

1. WHETHER THE OFFENCE MENTIONED IN THE FIR(S) IS MADE OUT?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

2. WHETHER LEGAL PROCEEDING IN THE CHAIN SNATCHING CASE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

3. WHETHER THE CANCELLATION OF BAIL VIOLATING ANY RIGHTS OF THE

4. WHETHER THE ARREST WARRANT ISSUED TO THE INVESTIGATION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

1. WHETHER THE OFFENCE MENTIONED IN THE FIR(S) IS MADE OUT?

• Uses a weapon that could kill someone,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder—

The ingredients of murder are:

Intention to Cause Death (Clause 1):

Knowledge of Imminently Dangerous Act (Clause 2):

Intention to Cause Bodily Injury Sufficient to Cause Death (Clause 3):

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

• There is no guilt mind as per the Legal Maxim: "Mens rea"

2 State Of U.P. vs Ram Gopal Saini AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1095

3 Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

5. Youth and vulnerability:

4 Ramdeo Rai Yadav Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1990 SC 1180

• Varun, being a minor is more vulnerable and suspectable to influence, especially

6. There is mistaken belief:

7. There is unwilling participation:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

9. There is a violation by not granting bail.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page|

377. Unnatural offences. —

7 Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCC 470;

• This section continues to be relevant in the act of non-consensual sex of people.