Primer As

RIZVI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S
Rizvi Law College
Primera Moot Court Competition

2022-23
Bench Memorial
Rizvi Law College’s Primera Moot Court Competition 2022-23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
a) Purpose of the Bench Memorandum
2. Moot Problem
3. Legal Issues
a) Whether the SLP is maintainable or not?
b) Whether the charges levelled against the accused are applicable are not?
4. Legal Analysis
5. Appendix
6. Suggested Questions
Page | 2
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Bench Memorandum
The purpose of this Bench Memorandum is to provide the judges with basic factual and legal
information to enable evaluation of the written and oral performances of participating teams.
This Bench Memorandum should be read in conjunction with the Moot Problem.
The Moot Problem was designed to present the competitors with a balanced fictional case such
that each side has both strengths and weaknesses to argue and defend. Teams should be able to
construct good arguments for both the applicant and the respondent. As a judge, your good
selves' task is to evaluate the quality of each team's analysis, their knowledge of domestic and
international law, and their advocacy skills. We request your good selves to strictly follow the
aforesaid evaluation process and parameters.
Please note that this memorandum is not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the legal
issues raised in the Moot Problem.
The state practice and legal authorities cited herein are illustrative and not intended to be a
comprehensive review of all relevant sources of law. The drafters of the said memorandum have
tried to make it as exhaustive as possible. Though, we expect judges not to be surprised when
participants present arguments or authorities, which are not discussed in this memorandum. This
does not suggest that such arguments are not relevant or credible.
Please, also keep in mind that the Moot Problem raises legal issues that are relevant to more than
one claim for relief. Participants will often need to argue in favour of a rule of law in support of
one claim and distinguish the same rule with respect to another claim. Judges should note and
question any internal inconsistencies that may arise in a competitor’s or team’s argument.
Page | 3
MOOT PROBLEM
Brief Facts:
1. The Victim ‘X’ (adult) lived with her mother, Sheetal Mishra and 2 younger brothers, Rahul
and Sahil, in village Satala, Madhyarashtra. The father of the victim died 4 years ago and the
victim along with her mother used to take care of the daily expenses of her family. She owned
cattle and sold dairy products to make ends meet. At some distance from the house of the
victim, there used to live an alleged accused- Raghu (adult) with his father Radhe Lal, who
was the principal of a government college, his mother Seema Devi and a younger sister Pooja.
The accused and victim were distant relatives. There was a dispute between both families about
a property regarding which; a civil suit was pending in the city civil court, Bombay.
2. On the night of 18.08.2022, the victim left home at 8 pm to go to the field to ease herself. As
soon as she reached the fields, someone forcibly caught hold of her, shut her mouth, dragged
her inside a small shed on the field, and raped her. As it was very dark, she could not recognize
that person. When the victim tried to raise alarm, the person threatened to kill her and her
family.
3. A few days after this incident the victim was very depressed and disclosed this incident to her
mother on 28.08.2022. Soon after an FIR was lodged by Sheetal Mishra (PW-1) in the nearby
police station on 01.09.2022 bearing FIR No. 1074 of 2022. In the FIR, the name of the alleged
accused was Raghu.
4. On the same day at 5 pm, the victim’s medical examination took place, according to the
procedure laid down. Later it was found that there were a few bodily injuries on her right arm,
back and her hymen was ruptured. No sperm was found in the pathology test.
5. The Investigating Officer arrested Raghu on the charges of raping the victim. The victim was
called by the I.O. to give a statement under section 161 C.r.P.C. on 04.09.2022 wherein she
stated that, “Raghu used to follow me on the way back home from my college. On many
occasions, he had tried to hold my hands forcefully. On 15.08.2022, He said that he loved me
and wanted to marry me. I disclosed this incident to my mother who ridiculed Raghu in return.”
Page | 4
Then somewhere around August 2022, Raghu came to my college and asked me to run away
with him and said that if I did not follow his request, I would have to bear the consequences.
However, I did not report this incident to my mother. On the night of the incident, as it was
very dark, I could not see the person who raped me. But I suspect that he was Raghu.”
She further stated – “I was raped by Raghu 3 months back too. I was very scared; thus I could
not tell anyone then. But how could I stay silent when the act was repeated.”
6. Sheetal Mishra (PW-1), mother of the victim stated in her statement, “Behaviour of my
daughter had changed from the past few days. I kept asking her about the reason but she never
told me. When I strictly asked her about her changed behaviour, it was only then she told me
that she was raped by someone she believes to be Raghu. Raghu and his father were
pressurizing me to withdraw the civil suit. In order to compel me to withdraw the suit, Raghu
raped my daughter.”
7. Mr Jung Bahadur (PW-2), a villager, who was easing himself in a nearby field stated – “When
I was in my field at around 8:20 pm I saw in the light of the torch that Raghu was running
towards his home in a naked condition with only his underwear on.”
8. Gauri (PW-3), the classmate of the victim, made a statement– “Someday in the month of May
this year, Raghu came to college during our lunchtime. He threatened the victim that if she did
not marry him, she would have to face the consequences.” PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 repeated the
above-said statements before the magistrate.
9. The victim while making a statement under section 164 C.r.P.C., repeated the statement which
was earlier made but denied being raped by Raghu 3 months back which was observed by the
Magistrate.
10. Additionally, Raghu in his statement under section 313 C.r.P.C. stated that - “I loved ‘X’ and
I wanted to marry her. I knew that she also secretly loved me but due to the existing family
dispute, she was reluctant to confess it to me. I did nothing wrong on 18.08.2022. Whatever
happened, was with her consent. On the evening of 17.08.2022, she asked me to meet her in
the field, the next day at 8 pm. When I met her, she voluntarily came with me inside the shed,
but as soon as I took off my clothes, she started shouting and crying for help. Startled and
shocked by her sudden behaviour, I ran away leaving my pants and towel. I have not committed
rape on her. I have been falsely implicated due to the existing property dispute.”
Page | 5
11. The Investigating Officer (IO) inspected the place of occurrence and recovered the clothes
mentioned by Raghu during the course of the investigation. The pant and towel were sent to
the Forensic Science Lab for examination. As per the Forensic Science Lab report, no
spermatozoa were reported on the clothes.
12. After completion of the investigation and due procedure being followed, a charge sheet was
filed on 17.10.2022, charges of rape u/s 376 and criminal intimidation u/s 506 Indiana Penal
Code, 1860. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court, on 22.11.2022 convicted
Raghu u/s 376(1), 506(2) IPC stating the reason that “Law is settled on the point that in the
case of rape, if the evidence of the victim in the offence of rape is found to be wholly reliable,
then the same can be made the foundation for recording the conviction against the accused and
in such a case no corroboration in particulars shall be required”.
13. On 11.01.2023, Raghu filed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court before the
Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the Ld. Trial Court.
14. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Raghu has filed a Special Leave Petition under
article 136 challenging the conviction before the Supreme Court of Indiana. Now the matter is
listed before the court for admission in February 2023.
Page | 6
THE LEGAL ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARE

APPLICABLE OR NOT?
Page | 7
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Whether the Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable or not?
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
The Appellant humbly submits before this The Respondent humbly submits before this
Hon’ble Court that the appellant has filed the Hon’ble Court that the present SLP filed by the
Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) aggrieved by Appellant is not maintainable under Article 136
the judgement given by the Hon’ble High Court of the Constitution of Indiana for the following
and Ld. Trial court leading to conviction of the reasons:
appellant u/s 376 & 506 of IPC. The said In the present matter, the essential ingredients
conviction was on the basis of the statement of of SLP i.e., substantial question of law and
the victim void of any corroboration of grave miscarriage of justice are not fulfilled by
evidence. the Appellant before approaching this Hon’ble
The SLP filed under Article 136 of the Court under article 136 and hence the SLP is
Constitution of Indiana is maintainable on the not maintainable on the following grounds.
following grounds:
Grave Miscarriage of Justice: No Grave Miscarriage of Justice:
The two essential ingredients for the In the present matter the Hon’ble High Court
maintainability of a petition under art.136 are and Trial Court have rightfully come to
substantial question of law and grave conclusion that the Appellant is guilty u/s
miscarriage of justice. 376(1) and 506(2) of IPC. The Appellant has
In the present case, there has been a gross been convicted justly for the crime committed
miscarriage of justice towards the appellant and there has been no miscarriage of justice in
wherein the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the the impugned matter.
erroneous judgement of the Ld. Sessions Court As stated in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
which had placed its reliance on the statement Islam, “the Supreme Court exercises its
of the victim which has prima facie evident jurisdiction under Article 136, it definitely
discrepancies. Furthermore, there have been exercises a discretionary jurisdiction but such
questionable and unexplained contradictions in discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised in
the statement of the victim made under sec.161 order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of
of CrP.C and under section 164 of the CrPC justice.
Page | 8
which raises a doubt over its very credibility. The Ld. Trial Court have accepted the evidence
Additionally, the delay in filing F.I.R has not to be wholly reliable and have taken all the facts
been reasonably explained by the Respondent. and circumstances into lawful consideration
Thus, it can be asserted that the statement made while passing its judgement.
by the victim cannot be corroborated with the The Ld. Trial Court while evaluating the
evidence before the Hon’ble Court and cannot statements made by the PWs along with the
be the only ground for the conviction of the said testimony of the victim have been duly
accused. In the instant case the prosecution has considered while dealing with the instant
failed to corroborate the statement made by the matter. The statement given by the villager-
victim to the evidence present on record. The (PW-2) Mr. Jung Bahadur, who saw the
necessity of medical corroboration in cases of accused running naked with only his underwear
rape is essential to convict the accused u/s 376 on at the time of the incidence corroborates the
which has not been duly considered in the unbroken chain of events pointing towards the
instant matter. guilt of the accused. Moreover, the classmate of
The judgement, thus pronounced by the Ld. the present victim- (PW-3) Gauri have stated in
Trial Court has overlooked the evidences which her statement that, “He threatened the victim
does not satisfactorily corroborate the chain of that if she did not marry him, she would have
events leading to the conviction of the accused to face the consequences.” The above
and causing grave miscarriage of justice. statements and evidences on record direct
towards the guilt of the accused.
Similarly, in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai The trial court while convicting the accused has
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, the Court examined the evidence of the prosecution as
summarized the circumstances wherein well as the testimony of the accused. The
concurrent findings of the courts in a criminal judgement passed by the Trial Court
matter can be reopened by the Supreme Court corroborates the chain of events leading to the
in an appeal under Article 136 of the conviction of the accused. The Appellant in the
Constitution. It was held that “The Court will present matter thus, has not faced any grave
not interfere unless the findings are vitiated by miscarriage of justice.
errors of law or the conclusions reached by the
Courts below are so patently opposed to well-
established principles as to amount to a
Page | 9
miscarriage of justice. The Court will interfere Absence Of A Substantial Question of Law:
in a case where it finds that the appellate Court The cardinal principle of jurisprudence is that
has not at all applied its judicial mind to the the existence of a substantial question of law is
appreciation of the evidence and grave an essential condition for admission of an
injustice has resulted therefrom. Where the appeal under Article 136 which cannot be
Court is satisfied that the findings are vitiated merely overlooked. A substantial question of
by errors of law or that the conclusions reached law shall be one which has a material bearing
by the courts below are so patently opposed to on the decision of the case that is something
well-established principles of judicial which affects the rights of the parties. Further,
approach, that they can be characterized as a question not covered by any specific
wholly unjustified and even perverse, it will provision, principle or precedents which
reassess the evidence and interfere.” involves a debatable legal issue shall be
considered a substantial question of law.
Substantial Question of Law:
It is humbly submitted that in the present matter
Even if the contention that the impugned matter
there is no such substantial question of law
at hand does not involve a substantial question
involved. The conviction of the accused in the
of law is taken to be true, the courts through
instant case is merely a question of fact. Even
various judicial precedents have overlooked the
with the question of fact, the lower courts have
presence of a substantial question of law in a
rightly upraised the evidences which includes
criminal appeal filed under article 136 and have
the statements of the victim, the accused, PW-
admitted a special leave petition solely on the
1, PW-2, PW-3 and the medical report that led
grounds of there being a gross miscarriage of
to the conviction of the accused.
justice. Thus fulfilling both the ingredients is
All the evidence i.e., the statements of PW-2,
not the requisite in a criminal appeal filed under
PW-3, medical report etc. were taken into
article 136. Even if either of the ingredients are
consideration based on which the trial court
fulfilled the SLP is ought to be maintainable.
convicted the appellant in the first place.
The court would look into the matter only if
The due procedure of law was followed by the
there is an error in law or the conclusion arrived
Trial court. After appreciating the evidences on
at by the court has led to grave miscarriage of
record the Court has rightly passed its judgment
justice. This is clearly stated by the Supreme
on convicting the accused u/s 376(1) and
Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai
506(2) IPC.
Page | 10
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat while laying No Special Circumstances Exists In The

down the jurisprudence for Article 136 in Present Cases To Exercise The
criminal matters. The emphasis which is laid Discretionary Power:
down on the word ‘or’ makes it evident and Article 136 merely confers a discretionary
clear that one of the requisite needs to be power on the court to be exercised only in
fulfilled. special and exceptional circumstances. In the
The emphasis to fulfil the requisite of grave present case no such special and exceptional
miscarriage of justice has been laid down in the circumstances exsist. The Ld. Trial Court has
case of criminal appeals in Kapildeo Singh vs rightly evaluated the circumstantial evidences
The King, wherein the court relying on various and the chain of events which has led to the
prior judicial precedents held: conviction of the present Appellant not making
a) In criminal cases, SLP can only be granted him face any substantial or grave injustice.
if the courts have committed a miscarriage This had been rightfully held in the case of
of justice in rendering their judgement. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of
b) There must be something so irregular or Trustees, Port of Mumbai, wherein it was held
outrageous as to shake the very foundations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “this
of justice and that misdirection or overriding and exceptional power has been
irregularity is such that it deprives the vested in the Supreme Court to be exercised
accused of the substance of fair trial and the sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause
protection of the law. of justice in the Supreme Court in exceptional
c) There must be intrusion to the liberty and cases only when special circumstances are
violation of the accused rights by the shown to exist.”
judgement pronounced, for the interference The Appellant has failed to show that there is
of the apex court. an exceptional and special circumstance
d) Criminal proceedings can be reviewed present for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its
when there has been violation of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
principles of natural justice or if it is shown The appeal admitted by special leave does not
that substantial and grave injustice has been entitle the Appellant to open out the whole case
done. and contest all the findings of fact and raise
Thus it is most humbly submitted before this every point which could be raised in the High
Hon’ble Court that the SLP in the present case Court. As in the present matter the High Court
Page | 11
is maintainable on the grounds as adduced too stands with the decision of the trial court.
above. The Appellant has no valid or lawful reason to
SLP granted under Special Circumstances: approach this court under any exceptional
It has been seen and proved over and again in circumstances.
the precedents that the powers provided to the The medical examination report states the
Apex Court under Article 136 of the presence of bodily injuries and rupture of
Constitution is discretionary and is to be used hymen. The report stating the absence of sperm
in special circumstances. in the pathology test does not prove in any form
In the present case, the requisite to invoke the that the victim was not raped. The victim was
Article 136 has been fulfilled in the contentions threatened to be killed if she spoke of the
made above. The Ld. Trial passed a judgment incident that occurred on the night of
which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court 18.08.2022. Along with this and other major
leading to grave miscarriage of justice. The factors, there was a delay in filing the FIR.
erroneous judgement was passed by the court However, these reasons still do not constitute
has led to conviction of the said accused. The that the Appellant was not guilty of the crime
judgement was passed based on the statements committed by him had hence the courts justly
given by the victim and the PWs devoid of any convicted him.
material corroboration. Moreover, the chain of The trial court has drawn the inference of rape
events taking into consideration the and criminal intimidation based on the
background circumstances have not been dealt. statements of the victim, and her classmate and
Thus the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court the chain of events that occurred.
under article 136 should rightfully be exercised Thus, it is humbly submitted before this
in the present case as there has been substantial Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Trial Court
and gross miscarriage of justice and presents passing the order of convicting the accused and
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a the High Court upholding to that decision is just
review of the decision appealed, thereby lawful. The Appellant in the present matter has
involving special and exceptional faced no substantial or grave miscarriage of
circumstances. justice. No special or exceptional circumstance
Thus, it is humbly submitted that the High exists for the Appellant to approach this
Court and Trial court have erred in passing the Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the
judgement by relying on the statement of the
Page | 12
victim without corroboration of evidence, Constitution of Indiana as both or either of the

which has led to grave miscarriage of justice. ingredients of SLP are not fulfilled.
Therefore, the present SLP is maintainable
Page | 13
Issue 2: Whether the charges levelled against the accused are applicable or not?
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
It is humbly submitted that the charges levelled It is humbly submitted that the charges levelled
against the accused in the present case are not against the accused in the present case have
reasonable and the ingredients pertaining to the been lawfully implicated and the charges are
same have been overlooked by the Ld. Trial rightly applicable to him. The arguments for
Court. The arguments for the same are as the same are as follows:
follows:
Delay in FIR: Delay in FIR:
In the present case, the victim concealed the In the present case, the incident occurred on the
fact of the occurrence of the incident which night of 18.08.2022 following which the
took place on 18.08.2022 and it took her 10 victim took 10 days to share this incident with
days to share the information with PW-1 (i.e., her mother. On learning about this incident on
mother) which was on 28.08.2022. 28.08.2022, the mother lodged the complaint 4
Furthermore, the victim along with PW1 did days later in the nearby police station on
not file the complaint immediately, rather they 01.09.2022.
took 4 long days to lodge the complaint in the It is asserted by the apex court in numerous
nearby police station on 01.09.2022. The time precedents that Delay per se is not a mitigating
taken by the victim to tell her mother (PW1) circumstance for the accused when accusations
regarding the incident was of 10 days, taking of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first
into account the societal pressure. However, information report cannot be used as a
the delay after the PW-1 knowing the incident ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution
has not been reasonably explained. The time case and doubting its authenticity.
period between the victim having told her It is humbly submitted in the instant matter, the
mother about the incident and PW-1 reporting act of rape committed on the victim by the
the incident is enough to falsely frame the accused and further the accused threatening to
accused taking into consideration the ingoing kill her and her family if she raised alarm,
civil dispute between both the families. resulted in her being under grave emotional
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs M. and mental trauma. The delay caused by the
Madhusudhan Rao. the Court stated that mother to file the complaint about the night of
Page | 14
delay in lodging the FIR, more often than not, the incident that was narrated to her by her
results in embellishment and exaggeration, daughter is explainable as the mother was
which is a creature of an afterthought. concerned and reluctant to put the reputation of
That a delayed report not only gets bereft of the victim and the honour of her family at risk.
the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the The mother believed that such a news could
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated have a negative impact on the victim in society
account of the incident or a concocted story as and hence was sceptical for such a news to
a result of deliberations and consultations, break out. The delay in the FIR filed by the
also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its mother of the victim does not imply that the
veracity. Therefore, it is vital that the delay in victim and her family had malafide intentions
lodging the report should be satisfactorily against the accused or his family.
explained. Resultantly, when the substratum of In State of Punjab v Gurmeet Singh and Anr,
the evidence given by the complainant is found Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “in sexual
to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be offences, the delay in lodging FIR, if properly
rejected in its entirety. explained, is not material. The Hon'ble
The delay, in the instant case has not been Supreme Court held that "the Courts cannot
explained. Additionally, the Ld. Trial Court overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay
has failed to acknowledge the said fact. This in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety
has led to innumerable speculations and of reasons particularly the reluctance of the
ultimately the accused being declared guilty prosecutrix or her family members go to the
for the crime which he hasn’t committed. The police and complain about the incident which
victim as well as her mother failed to explain concerned the reputation of the prosecutrix
the delay in filing an FIR. and the honour of the family. It is only after
Irregularities in the statements of the giving a cool thought that a complaint of
Victim: sexual offences is generally lodged.”
The evidence recorded u/s 164 C.r.P.C. has The delay in filing the FIR in the present case
great sanctity, as it is considered free and is reasonable. The trial court has
under no coercion or undue influence which is acknowledged the fact of the delay in FIR
why the same is called substantive evidence. however, did not find such a delay as
Statements under Section 161 C.r.P.C. can be unreasonable.
used only for the purpose of contradiction and
Page | 15
statements under Section 164 C.r.P.C. can be Minor Discrepancies In The Statement Of
used for both corroboration and contradiction. The Victim Does Not Affect The
In a case where the Magistrate has to perform Prosecution Case:
the duty of recording a statement under The statement made by the victim under
Section 164 C.r.P.C., he is under an obligation Section 164 C.r.P.C. is one that is taken under
to elicit all information which the witness oath before a Judicial Magistrate or
wishes to disclose. This was produced in the Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, the statement
case of Binod Sanyasi vs. State of Sikkim. given before the Magistrate should be taken
In the instant case there are contradictions in into account as it has more weightage as
the statements given by the victim to the police compared to the statement given under Section
u/s 161 and before the magistrate u/s 164 161 C.r.P.C.
C.r.P.C. She while giving her statement to the Additionally, as stated under section 25 of the
police stated that “I was raped by Raghu 3 Indian Evidence Act - No confession made to
months back too. I was very scared; thus, I a police-officer, shall be proved as against a
could not tell anyone then. But how could I stay person accused of any offence. It is humbly
silent when the act was repeated.” Which was submitted before this Court that the non-
later denied by her while recording her corroboration of statement of the victim made
statement under Section 164 C.r.P.C. the under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC does not
discrepancy in the present case between both affect the present case as the mistake of
the statements cannot be taken up lightly. The statement made under section 161 of CrPC has
victim in the present case is a mentally and no material bearing. In the case of Rajeev
physically developed adult who is well aware Kourav v. Baisahab and Ors., it was held that
about a heinous crime such as rape. The failure “The High Court committed an error in
to mention about the incident leading to quashing criminal proceedings by assessing
subsequent irregularity has not been the statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
considered by the Ld. Trial Court. Statements of witnesses recorded under
In the instant case, the material evidence Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible
submitted before the court along with the in evidence cannot be taken into consideration
statements recorded of the PW’s failed to have by the Court. The judgment of the High Court
any corroboration.The circumstantial evidence is set aside by the Supreme Court.”
Page | 16
in the instant case has not been duly considered The statement thus given before the Magistrate
while pronouncing the judgment. should be taken into consideration and it alone
stands to be of sterling quality.
False Accusations: Criminal Intimidation by the Accused:
In the present case the presumption of victim It is humbly submitted that the Appellant in the
and PW-1 framing the accused in the case of instant matter fulfils the essentials of Section
rape cannot be refuted. The ongoing civil 503 of criminal intimidation by threating the
dispute between the family of the victim and victim to kill her (injury to the person) and her
the accused are a valid reason for framing the family (injury to whom the person is interested
accused in the instant case which the Ld. Trial in). Furthermore, extracting from the statement
Court has failed to consider while pronouncing of Gauri (PW-3) “He threatened the victim
the judgment. that if she did not marry him, she would have
In the case of Jaharlal Das vs State Of to face the consequences.”
Orissa the court stated that No doubt the In the case of Narender Kumar & Ors. v.
offence is a shocking one but the gravity of the State, the court has laid down the following
offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as necessary ingredients to constitute the offence
legal proof is concerned. Invariable in such of criminal intimidation:
cases a person last seen with the victim, unless i.) The threat of injury to the victim
otherwise there are circumstances prima facie ii.) The threat of injury or harm to the victim’s
exonerating him, would be the prime suspect body, reputation or property.
but in the ultimate judicial adjudication iii.) The threat of injury or harm to any person
suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be or such person’s body, reputation or property
allowed to take the place of proof. in which victim has vested interest
The victim herself in the statements recorded iv) The intent to cause alarm to that person to
u/s 161 & 164 C.r.P.C. stated that “On the do an act which he is not legally bound to do
night of the incident, as it was very dark, I or omit from doing any such act.
could not see the person who raped me. But I It is humbly submitted that the victim tried to
suspect that he was Raghu.” This was stated raise alarm on the night of the incident. On
by the victim in her statement given to the doing so, the accused threatened her to kill her
police as well as the statement given before the and her family. Such intimidation caused an
magistrate which clearly depicts that her alarm in the victim to not report about the
Page | 17
accusation on Raghu is solely based on her incident which she is otherwise legally bound
suspicion and not any evidentiary proof. to do. The Ld. Trial court has rightly convicted
Moreover the PW-2, Jung Bahadur has the accused of the said charge after evaluating
corroborated to the fact that the area was dark. the necessary ingredients.
Hence the victim’s presumption of the person Malafide intention of the Accused:
who dragged and raped her being Raghu is not The families of the accused and the victim
ill-founded. The victim failed to recognise disputed over a property matter, due to which
whether the person was Raghu who have Raghu and his father were pressurizing PW-1-
committed the heinous act upon her. The Ld. the mother of the victim to withdraw the civil
Trial Court has failed to appraise the said fact. suit. However, the mother of the victim did not
do so.
Medical Report: The Appellant in the present matter performed
In the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of the gruesome crime of rape on the victim with
Bihar (now Jharkhand) [(2006) 8 SCC 560], the intention that the victim or her mother
the Court held as under: - Under Section would not disclose this matter to anyone in
375 IPC, six categories indicated above are order to protect the reputation of the victim.
the basic ingredients of the offence. The Further if the victim discloses this incident,
important ingredient of the offence under then the accused would reveal in the society
Section 375 punishable under Section 376 IPC that the accused was raped.
is penetration which is altogether missing in It is an admitted fact that the accused was
the instant case. No offence under Section 376 present in the shed on the night of 18.08.2022.
IPC can be made out unless there is This can be extracted from the statement of the
penetration to some extent. In the absence of accused. “On the evening of 17.08.2022, she
penetration to any extent, it would not bring asked me to meet her in the field, the next day
the offence of the appellant within the four at 8 pm. When I met her, she voluntarily came
corners of Section 375 of the Penal Code. with me inside the shed….” This statement
Therefore, the basic ingredients for proving a puts forth that the accused was present with the
charge of rape are the accomplishment of the victim on the night on the incident.
act with force. The other important ingredient However, the fact of the victim being in love
is penetration of the male organ within the with the accused is completely false. As
labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or relying on the statement made by PW-3- the
Page | 18
without any emission of semen or even an classmate of the victim clearly reveals that the
attempt at penetration into the private part of victim was not in love with the accused as he
the victim completely, partially or slightly threatened her with consequences if she did not
would be enough for the purpose of Sections marry him.
375 and 376 IPC. Hence, the statement of the accused stating that
In the present case the accused has clearly the victim voluntarily went inside with the
stated in his statement that the victim and the accused stands completely false.
accused were in love. The victim had herself The intention of the accused was to create a
asked the alleged accused to be present at 8:00 sense of threat or terror in the victim and her
pm. Moreover, she voluntarily came inside the mother in order to withdraw the civil suit. This
shed with Raghu. When the accused started to was done to put forth that if the suit was not
undress himself only then the victim raised an withdrawn then the victim and her family
alarm which led the accused to fled the scene. would have to face the repercussions.
The said fact hints towards the absence of
ingredients of rape being fulfilled. The Ld. Medical Report:
Trial Court have failed to appraise the To constitute the offence of rape it is not
evidence while convicting the accused. necessary that there should be emission of
In Aman Kumar and Anr vs State Of Haryana semen. Partial penetration of the penis within
The rupture of hymen is by no means necessary the vagina or pudenda with or without
to constitute the offence of rape. Even a slight emission of semen or even an attempt at
penetration in the vulva is sufficient to penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose
constitute the offence of rape and rupture of of law. It is therefore quite possible to commit
the hymen is not necessary. Vulva penetration legally the offence of rape without producing
with or without violence is as much rape as any injury to the genitals or leaving any
vaginal penetration. The statute merely seminal stains.
requires evidence of penetration, and this may It is humbly submitted in the present matter
occur with the hymen remaining intact. The that the medical examination report states, the
actus reus is complete with penetration. victim has bodily injuries on her right arm and
In the instant case, the hymen is ruptured back. It was also found that her hymen was
however there are a list of reasons because of ruptured. It is nowhere stated in the medical
which this could happen and not necessarily report that penetration did not take place. The
Page | 19
due to sexual intercourse. Therefore, the report only states that no sperm was found in
ruptured hymen does not give any solid proof the pathology test. As extracted from the facts
as to whether the rape occurred or not. of the delay in FIR, it can be a paramount
Additionally, in the case of State of H. P. v. reason for the absence of sperm in the vagina.
Lekh Raj and Anr, the Court will come to a The hymen of the victim was ruptured because
definite conclusion in respect of the of the forceful penetration of the accused
determining the issue in case of criminal toward the victim.
jurisprudence precisely in a case of rape. The Due to the unlawful and forceful act of the
presence of spermatozoa, dead or alive, would accused, the victim suffered bodily injuries.
differ from person to person and its positive The injuries that have been found and thus
presence depend upon various circumstances. which has been reported through the medical
Otherwise also the presence or absence of examination, suggest that it is not a case of
spermatozoa is ascertained for the purposes of consent and the act was done against the will
corroboration of the statement of the of the victim. The evidence available on record
prosecutrix. If the prosecutrix is believed to be and the medical evidence shows that the
truthful witness, in her deposition no further injuries on the victim establishes that the
corroboration may be insisted. Corroboration victim resisted the act.
is admittedly only a rule of prudence. The pant and towel of the accused recovered
In the instant case after the medical by the Investigating Officer at the at the place
examination was done of the victim it was of occurrence on the incident was sent to the
stated in the medical report that no Forensic Science Lab and reports that no
spermatozoa were found. The material spermatozoa were reported on the clothes.
evidence i.e., the cloth and the pant of the However, the accused must have removed his
accused taken from the placed of the crime clothes before raping the victim due to which
even had no spermatozoa dead or alive. This no signs of spermatozoa was found on it.
clearly indicates towards the accused being Further, the above-mentioned argument can
innocent of the charges levelled against him. also be implied from the statement of the
The absence of Spermatozoa on the recoveries, independent witness (PW-2) Jung Bahadur,
absence of rupture of hymen and irregularities that the appellant did not have his clothes on
in the statement by the victim directs towards for any signs of spermatozoa to be found on it.
the innocence of the accused.
Page | 20
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble The Appellant in the present case fulfils the
Court that the prime ingredients required to essential ingredients of rape.
prove the charge of rape are not met and have As declared in the medical report with no
not been taken into consideration while sperm being found in the pathology test and no
pronouncing the judgement by the Ld. Trial spermatozoa present on the pant and towel as
Court and the High Court. Therefore, the declared in the Forensic Science Lab report
appellant prays to acquit the accused of the does not prove that the accused did not rape the
charges levelled against him and to quash and victim.
set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
Court and Learned Sessions Court. Supreme Court that the charges levelled
against the accused u/s 376 and 506 are
applicable as the in the instant case, the
ingredients of rape and criminal intimidation
are being fulfilled in order to constitute these
charges. The decision by the High Court and
Trial Court are just and lawful in convicting
the accused under the mentioned charges.
Page | 21
Appendix
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code
[375. Rape. —A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has
sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following de-
scriptions: —
(First) — Against her will.
(Secondly) —Without her consent.
(Thirdly) — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person
in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
(Fourthly) —With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to
be lawfully married.
(Fifthly) — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness
of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe-
fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that
to which she gives consent.
(Sixthly) — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation. —
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Page | 22
(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years
of age, is not rape.] STATE AMENDMENT
(Manipur) —(a) in clause sixthly, for the word “sixteen” substitute the word “fourteen”; and
(b) in the Exception, for the word “fifteen” substitute the word “thirteen”. [Vide Act 30 of 1950,
sec. 3 (w.e.f. 16-4-1950) (made earlier than Act 43 of 1983)]. COMMENTS Absence of injury on
male organ of accused Where a prosecutrix is a minor girl suffering from pain due to ruptured
hymen and bleeding vagina depicts same, minor contradictions in her statements they are not of
much value, also absence of any injury on male organ of accused is no valid ground for innocence
of accused, conviction under section 375 I.P.C. proper; Mohd. Zuber Noor Mohammed
Changwadia v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cr LJ 3419 (Guj). Penetration Mere absence of
spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case; Prithi Chand v. State
of Himachal Pradesh, (1989) Cr LJ 841: AIR 1989 SC 702.
376. Punishment for rape. —
(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but
which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine
unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven
years.
(2) Whoever, —
(a) being a police officer commits rape—
(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is
appointed; or
Page | 23
(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman
in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s institution
takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home,
place or institution; or
(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position
and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or
(g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the
Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1. —Where a
woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common
intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of
this sub-section. Explanation 2. — “Women’s or children’s institution” means an institution,
whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children or a widows’ home or
by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of woman or
children. Explanation 3. — “Hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the
precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of
persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.]
Criminal intimidation- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation
or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with
intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the
Page | 24
means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation-A
threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is
interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from
prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—
And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by
fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 161 in the Code of Criminal Procedure
161. Examination of witnesses by police.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf,
acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by
such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a
criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an
examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the
statement of each such person whose statement he records.
164. Recording of confessions and statements.
Page | 25
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction
in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under
this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before
the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a
police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time
being in force.
313. Power to examine the accused.
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the
Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for
his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the
Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his
examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions,
or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and
put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which
such answers may tend to show he has committed.
Page | 26
Suggested Questions
1. State the discrepancy in the statement of the victim u/s 161 & 164 CrPC?
2. Whether the ingredients of Article 136 are met in the present case?
3. Whether the conviction can be solely based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix?
4. Whether corroboration of evidence is required in a rape case?
5. What are the essential ingredients of section 375 IPC?
6. Is the delay in F.I.R reasonable?
7. What are the essential ingredients to constitute Section 506 IPC?
8. Whether the rupture of hymen amounts to rape?
Page | 27
RIZVI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S
Rizvi Law College
Primera Moot Court Competition

2022-23
Moot Proposition
Disclaimer: This case is purely fictional. Any resemblance to names, properties and
associations is purely coincidental.
Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition, 2022-23
1. The Victim ‘X’ (adult) lived with her mother, Sheetal Mishra and 2 younger brothers, Rahul
and Sahil, in village Satala, Madhyarashtra. The father of the victim died 4 years ago and the
victim along with her mother used to take care of the daily expenses of her family. She owned
cattle and sold dairy products to make ends meet. At some distance from the house of the
victim, there used to live an alleged accused- Raghu (adult) with his father Radhe Lal, who was
the principal of a government college, his mother Seema Devi and a younger sister Pooja. The
accused and victim were distant relatives. There was a dispute between both families about a
property regarding which; a civil suit was pending in the city civil court, Bombay.
2. On the night of 18.08.2022, the victim left home at 8 pm to go to the field to ease herself.
As soon as she reached the fields, someone forcibly caught hold of her, shut her mouth,
dragged her inside a small shed on the field, and raped her. As it was very dark, she could not
recognize that person. When the victim tried to raise alarm, the person threatened to kill her
and her family.
3. A few days after this incident the victim was very depressed and disclosed this incident to
her mother on 28.08.2022. Soon after an FIR was lodged by Sheetal Mishra (PW-1) in the
nearby police station on 01.09.2022 bearing FIR No. 1074 of 2022. In the FIR, the name of the
alleged accused was Raghu.
4. On the same day at 5 pm, the victim’s medical examination took place, according to
the procedure laid down. Later it was found that there were a few bodily injuries on her right
arm ,back and her hymen was ruptured. No sperm was found in the pathology test.
5. The Investigating Officer arrested Raghu on the charges of raping the victim. The victim was
called by the I.O. to give a statement under section 161 C.r.P.C. on 04.09.2022 wherein she
stated that, “Raghu used to follow me on the way back home from my college. On
many occasions, he had tried to hold my hands forcefully. On 15.08.2022, He said that he loved
me and wanted to marry me. I disclosed this incident to my mother who ridiculed Raghu in
return.”
Then somewhere around August 2022, Raghu came to my college and asked me to run away
with him and said that if I did not follow his request, I would have to bear the
consequences. However, I did not report this incident to my mother. On the night of the
2|Page
incident, as it was very dark, I could not see the person who raped me. But I suspect that he
was Raghu.”
She further stated – “I was raped by Raghu 3 months back too. I was very scared, thus I
could not tell anyone then. But how could I stay silent when the act was repeated.”
6. Sheetal Mishra (PW-1), mother of the victim stated in her statement, “Behaviour of my
daughter had changed from the past few days. I kept asking her about the reason but she never
told me. When I strictly asked her about her changed behaviour, it was only then she told me
that she was raped by someone she believes to be Raghu. Raghu and his father were
pressurizing me to withdraw the civil suit. In order to compel me to withdraw the suit, Raghu
raped my daughter.”
7. Mr Jung Bahadur (PW-2), a villager, who was easing himself in a nearby field stated – “When
I was in my field at around 8:20 pm I saw in the light of the torch that Raghu was running
towards his home in a naked condition with only his underwear on.”
8. Gauri (PW-3), the classmate of the victim, made a statement– “Someday in the month of May
this year, Raghu came to college during our lunchtime. He threatened the victim that if she did
not marry him, she would have to face the consequences.” PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 repeated the
above-said statements before the magistrate.
9. The victim while making a statement under section 164 C.r.P.C., repeated the statement which
was earlier made but denied being raped by Raghu 3 months back which was observed by the
Magistrate.
10. Additionally, Raghu in his statement under section 313 C.r.P.C. stated that - “I loved ‘X’ and
I wanted to marry her. I knew that she also secretly loved me but due to the existing family
dispute, she was reluctant to confess it to me. I did nothing wrong on 18.08.2022. Whatever
happened, was with her consent. On the evening of 17.08.2022, she asked me to meet her in
the field, the next day at 8 pm. When I met her, she voluntarily came with me inside the shed,
but as soon as I took off my clothes, she started shouting and crying for help. Startled and
shocked by her sudden behaviour, I ran away leaving my pants and towel. I have not committed
rape on her. I have been falsely implicated due to the existing property dispute.”
3|Page
11. The Investigating Officer (IO) inspected the place of occurrence and recovered the clothes
mentioned by Raghu during the course of the investigation. The pant and towel were sent to
the Forensic Science Lab for examination. As per the Forensic Science Lab report, no
spermatozoa were reported on the clothes.
12. After completion of the investigation and due procedure being followed, a charge sheet was
filed on 17.10.2022, charges of rape u/s 376 and criminal intimidation u/s 506 Indiana Penal
Code, 1860. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court, on 22.11.2022 convicted
Raghu u/s 376(1), 506(2) IPC stating the reason that “Law is settled on the point that in the
case of rape, if the evidence of the victim in the offence of rape is found to be wholly reliable,
then the same can be made the foundation for recording the conviction against the accused and
in such a case no corroboration in particulars shall be required”.
13. On 11.01.2023, Raghu filed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court before the
Bombay High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the Ld. Trial Court.
14. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Raghu has filed a Special Leave Petition under
article 136 challenging the conviction before the Supreme Court of Indiana. Now the matter is
listed before the court for admission in February 2023.
Issues:
I. Whether the SLP is maintainable or not?

II. Whether the charges levelled against the accused are applicable or not?
Note:
All the laws are pari-materia with the laws of India
4|Page

Primer As

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Primer As

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIZVI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S

Rizvi Law College

Primera Moot Court Competition

a) Purpose of the Bench Memorandum

a) Whether the SLP is maintainable or not?

Purpose of the Bench Memorandum

THE LEGAL ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE SLP IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

2. WHETHER THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST THE ACCUSED ARE

Issue 1: Whether the Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable or not?

Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat while laying No Special Circumstances Exists In The

victim without corroboration of evidence, Constitution of Indiana as both or either of the

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code

(First) — Against her will.

(Secondly) —Without her consent.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code

376. Punishment for rape. —

(a) being a police officer commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal

Section 161 in the Code of Criminal Procedure

161. Examination of witnesses by police.

Section 164 in the Code of Criminal Procedure

164. Recording of confessions and statements.

Section 313 in the Code of Criminal Procedure

313. Power to examine the accused.

Rizvi Law College

Primera Moot Court Competition

I. Whether the SLP is maintainable or not?

You might also like