MOOT MAMORIAL

Project submitted for the partial fulfilment for the degree of L.L.B

SIDDHARTHA
LAW COLLEGE

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Anas Ali Megha

University Roll. No: 210281400037

Faculty Of Law: L.L.B 6thsemester

Batch (2021-2024)

Siddhartha Law College, Dehradun

(Affiliated to Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun)

 MOOT MEMORIAL,2024

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

KHOOBSURAT, INDIE LAND

STATE OF GOA
(PROSECUTION)

V.

BABA NEEM HAKEEM PARAM SACHHA (GURUJI)

(DEFENCE)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTION 326, SECTION 354, SECTION 376, SECTION 377 OF THE INDIE LAND
PENAL CODE

UPON SUBMITION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks towards all those who
have helped me in making this project. Without their active guidance, help,
cooperation and encouragement, I would not have been able to present the
project on time.
I extend my sincere gratitude to my teacher Mr. ANAS ALI Sir for guidance and
extending all the required help, time and valuable inputs from time to time
during the tenure of my project.
I also acknowledge with deep sense of reverence, my gratitude towards the
faculty members of the college and all those people who are directly and
indirectly related to the project without their support and valuable suggestions
and input this project would not have been possible.

Date:
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of content………………………………………………………………….2
List of abbreviation……………………………………………………………..3
Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………….4
Statement of Jurisdiction……………….……………………………………6
Statement of Facts…………………………………………………………..7-8
Issues Raised……………………………………………………………………..9
Summary of Arguments…………………………………………….…10-11
Arguments Advanced……………………………………………………12-
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………….
 LIST OF ABBRREVIATION
& : And
Anr. : Another
AIR : All India Reporters
GOI : Government of India
Cr.P.C : Criminal Penal Code
C.P.C : Code of Civil Procedure
I.P.C : Indian Penal Code
Ors. : Others
SC : Supreme Court
SCR : Supreme Court Reporter
U/S : Under Section
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutory Authority:
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 Indian Penal Code,

Textbook Referred
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Commentary on The Code of Criminal
Procedure.
 The Code of Criminal Procedure by Prof. S.N Mishra
 Sarkar, Commentary on CPC
 CPC and Limitation by C.K.Takwani
 “The Indian Penal Code” by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.
 “Textbook on Indian Penal Code” by K.D. Gaur.
 “Indian Penal Code” by B.M. Gandhi.
 “Criminal Law” by PSA Pillai.
 “The Indian Penal Code: A Concise Commentary” by Ram
Jethmalani.
 “Indian Penal Code” by S.N. Mishra.
 “The Code of Criminal Procedure” by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.
 “Criminal Procedure Code” by M. S. Rama Rao.
 “The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CRPC) Bare Act with
Amendments 2021 Edition” by Government of India.

Case Referred:
 Hvyu
 Dd
 R
 R
  R
 R

Websites Referred:
 http://www.findlaw.com
 http://www.indiankanoon.com
 http://www.indlawinfo.org/
 http://www.jstor.org
 http://www.judis.nic.in
 http://www.lawsofindina.com
 http://www.manupatra.com
 http://www.scconline.com
 http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under
Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
The counsel representing the accused Pleading before The Hon’ble
Session Court of Khoobsurat U/S 177 and schedule-I of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. In which the honourable Court has the
jurisdiction.
Section – 177: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

The counsel
representing
the accused
Pleading
before the
hon‘ble
Session court
of
jaipur Under
section 177
and schedule-
1 Of
the Code of
criminal
procedure,
1973. In
which the
honourable
Court has
the
jurisdiction.
Section 177:
Every offence
shall ordinarily
be
inquired into
and tried by
a court
within
whose Local
jurisdiction it
was
committed.
The counsel
representing
the accused
Pleading
before the
hon‘ble
Session court
of
jaipur Under
section 177
and schedule-
1 Of
the Code of
criminal
procedure,
1973. In
which the
honourable
Court has
the
jurisdiction.
Section 177:
Every offence
shall ordinarily
be
inquired into
and tried by
a court
within
whose Local
jurisdiction it
was
committed.
The counsel
representing
the accused
Pleading
before the
hon‘ble
Session court
of
jaipur Under
section 177
and schedule-
1 Of
the Code of
criminal
procedure,
1973. In
which the
honourable
Court has
the
jurisdiction.
Section 177:
Every offence
shall ordinarily
be
inquired into
and tried by
a court
within
whose Local
jurisdiction it
was committe STATEMENT OF FACTS
1 In 2010, Kusum Krantiveer Paramsachhe was sent to the
Ashram of Baba Neem Hakeem Param Sacha (Guruji) by her
family where she was raped repetitively by Guruji. The chain of
events that transpired after that are:

i. One night she was feeding Indu, her favourite stray dog in
the ashram when Guruji asked her to her cottage which
she resisted.
ii. On resistance Guruji forced her and Indu started barking
at Guruji. In a fit of anger Guruji took a wooden stick lying
in vicinity and rammed it in the vagina of Indu pulling out
her intestine causing instant death.
iii. Guruji threatened Kusum that if she attempted to
complain or disclose the reality, he would do the same
with her and her ordeals at the hands of Guruji
continued.
iv. On 21st April 2016, Kusum and her daughter visited
Guruji’s Ashram to celebrate her husband’s (Krantiveer)
birthday, there, Guruji again tried to molest her but left
 the room soon as other followers were hovering around
her room.
v. After returning home she told everything to her husband
and decided to file an FIR against guruji.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the accused is liable for rape U/S 376 of The Indie
Land Penal Code?

2. Whether the accused is liable for sexual assault U/S 354

and 354A of The Indie Land Penal Code?

3. Whether the accused is liable for U/S 326, 428 and 377 of The
Indie Land Penal Code?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the accused is liable for rape U/S 376 of The Indie
Land Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted before this court that the accused is not
liable for rape U/S 376 of The Indie Land Penal Code. No rape was
committed with Kusum because there is no medical report
proving that the sexual intercourse was done forcefully.

2. Whether the accused is liable for sexual assault U/S 354

and 354A of The Indie Land Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted before this court that the accused is not liable
for sexual assault as their where no demand or request for sexual
favours or any advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures.

3.Whether the accused is liable U/S 326, 428 and 377 of The Indie
Land Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted before this court that the accused is not liable
U/S 326 there was no record of grievous hurt on the body of the
victim. As for the dog mentioned is nowhere to be found and was a
street dog which does not fall under the section 428 and the accused
was not liable. As per section 377 the voluntarily intercourse against
the order of nature with any man, woman and animal shall be
punished but the events have not given any indication towards its so
the counsel pleads non guilty.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the accused is liable for rape U/S 376 of The Indie
Land Penal Code?
It is humbly submitted before the court that no rape was
committed with Kusum. There is no evidence proving that rape is
committed with Kusum.
Facts – According to the facts stated by Kusum that she was raped
repetitively in the Asaram by Guruji on her stay in 2010.
As stated in the facts by Kusum she was raped repetitively by
Guruji there is no medical report of Kusum proving that rape was
committed by Guruji.
Under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, a man is considered
to have committed rape if:

 There is penetration by a person of the penis to any part of the

vagina, mouth, or anus of women.
 There is an insertion by a person of any object or part of the
body that is not being used by the penis or the vagina.
 There is manipulation done by a person or a group of people
into a woman’s body so that they can sexually penetrate her
vagina or any other part of her body.
 There is an application by a man or any other person his mouth
to the vagina, anus, or urethra of women.

As per the section there is no medical record of any penetration

by penis, insertion of any object, manipulation done to sexually
penetrate nor any application of mouth to the vagina, anus, or
urethra which is the essentials for being liable for the charge of
rape.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case below have materially erred in convicting the accused
for the offences under Sections 376 of the IPC.

It is further submitted by learned Advocate appearing on behalf

of the accused that the fact that the medical report does not
support the case of the prosecutrix/prosecution.

It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not

supported by the medical evidence since no stains of semen or
blood were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. It is
submitted therefore that it creates serious doubt about the
credibility of the prosecutrix.

It is further submitted learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the accused that there was a delay in lodging/reporting the
case to the police.

It is further summitted that the prosecutrix was send by her

family to the ashram in 2010 and on 21 April 2016 she herself
and her daughter visited Guruji ashram to celebrate his
birthday. It is submitted that no independent witnesses have
been examined proving the allegations true.

It is submitted by Advocate appearing on behalf of the original

accused that except the deposition/evidence of the prosecutrix
which has not been corroborated by the medical evidence, or
any medical report/ injury report showing any injury found on
the person of the victim any private parts especially neither
there is other independent and cogent evidence to connect the
accused with the guilt.

It is submitted that the story put forth by the prosecutrix in her

evidence that she was raped repetitively during her stay in
ashram and she returned to the same place after six years to
celebrate a birthday is not believable at all.
 It is further submitted therefore that based on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence does not
support the case of the prosecution/prosecutrix and the
deposition of the prosecutrix is full of material contradictions
and that facts are distorted against the accused and no
independent witnesses have been examined, it is not safe to
convict the accused solely on such testimony of the prosecutrix.

In support of the above submission, learned counsel has heavily

relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Raju and
others v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 as well as Rai Sandeep alias
Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2.

ggggggggMaking the above submissions and further relying

upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Mukesh v. State
of Chhattisgarh3 as well as Ravindra v. State of Madhya
Pradesh4.

Before considering the evidence of the prosecutrix, the

decisions of this Court in the cases of Raju (supra) and Rai
Sandeep alias Deepu, relied upon by he learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, are required to
be referred to and considered.

In the case of Raju (supra), it is observed and held by this Court

in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:

“11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest

distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a
false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation
and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be

1
(2008) 15 SCC 133

2
(2012) 8 SCC 21

3
(2014) 10 SCC 327
4
(2015) 4 SCC 491
 protected against the possibility of false implication,
particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It
must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that
an injured witness was present at the time when the incident
happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie
as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any
basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is
always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.

12. Reference has been made in Gurmit Singh case 5 to the

amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal
Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more
stringent, and also to Section 114-A of the Evidence Act with
respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations
of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape.

It is however significant that Sections 113-A and 113-B too

were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by
which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and
dowry death have been raised against the accused.

These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of

the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to
rape is visualised as the presumption under Section 114-A is
extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that
insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a
prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness
whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be
presumed that her statement should, without exception, be
taken as the gospel truth.

Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the

principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or
implicate a person falsely.

5
[(1996) 2 SCC 384: 1996 SCC (Cri) 316]
 We believe that it is under these principles that this case, and
others such as this one, need to be examined.”

In the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra), this Court had
an occasion to consider who can be said to be a “sterling
witness”.

In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under: “22 In our

considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high
quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.
The court considering the version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation.

To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would
be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting
point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the
initial statement and ultimately before the court.

It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution

qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to
withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for
any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved,
as well as the sequence of it.

Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of
other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons
used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and
the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with
the version of every other witness.

It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the
case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any
missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty
of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a
witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests
to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a
“sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the
core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other
attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects
should match the said version in material particulars in order to
enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to
sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty
of the charge alleged.”

In the case of Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana6, it is observed

and held by this Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an
accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires
confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished
and should be of sterling quality.

By considering the deposition of the prosecutrix, there are material

contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even
the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the
version of the prosecutrix is not believable. There is a delay in the
FIR. The medical report does not support the case of the
prosecution.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary

version of the prosecutrix cannot be taken as a gospel truth at face
value and in the absence of any other supporting evidence, there is
no scope to sustain the liability imposed on the respondent and
accused.

2. Whether the accused is liable for sexual assault U/S 354

6
(2011) 7 SCC 130
and 354A of The Indie Land Penal Code?
As Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deal with
offenses related to outraging the modesty of a woman. The key
points are as follows:
1. Section 354 IPC:
o This section penalizes assault or use of criminal force on a
woman with the intention to outrage her modesty.
o The essential ingredients of this offense are:
 The assault or criminal force must be on a woman.
 The accused intended to outrage her modesty or
knew that her modesty was likely to be outraged.
o In simpler terms, it addresses actions that violate a
woman’s dignity and modesty.
2. Section 354A IPC:
o This section specifically deals with sexual harassment.
o It covers situations where a person:
 Makes unwelcome sexual advances.
 Demands sexual favors.
 Shows pornography against the will of a woman.
 Makes sexually colored remarks.
 Intrudes upon a woman’s privacy.
o The offense under Section 354A IPC is cognizable, which
means the police can arrest the accused without a
warrant.

As provided in the facts there are no recodes or facts which indicate

the modesty of the prosecutrix has been outraged. The counsel
humbly submits that the accused lack pf intent in this aspect as a
follower of God with good reputation in the society.

It is further submitted that courts have been consisted with the

observation that the same be may be verified by the surrounding
circumstances and the oral evidence of the victim must inspire
confidence i.e., it should be convincing and reliable.

It is further submitted that the honourable Bombay High Court held:

“ The test will be whether a reasonable man will think that the act of
the accused was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage the
modesty of the women, if a quarrel takes place suddenly, for which
both parties are more or less to be blamed, then, by no stretch of
imagination can it be held that in the resultant scuffle between the
quarrelling parties, the accused persons either intended or knew it to
be likely that they will thereby outrage the modesty of women.”
In this regard, the Supreme Court has stated that the approach that
ordinarily a lady would not put her character at stake may not be
wrong but the same cannot be applied universally.

Each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the facts and

the circumstances surrounding it as the law reports are replete with
decisions where charges under section 376 (Rape) and section 354
(Outraging the Modesty of Women) of IPC have been found to be
falsely advanced.

3.Whether the accused is liable U/S 326, 428 and 377 of The Indie
Land Penal Code?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court the accused is not liable for
any grievous hurt to the petitioner as based on the facts there are no
sing of hurt found on the body of the petitioner on any time of the
investigation.
As further submitted by the fact or allegations raised by the
prosecutor on the accused are not based on actual evidence of any
nature.
As alleged by the petitioner there is no mention of any physical harm
on any medical report/injury reported by any means caused by
shooting, stabbing, or cutting or any instrument which, used as a
weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any
corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by
means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, swallow, or receive into the blood, or by means of any animal.
As per Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the
offense of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means. Here are the key points:
1. Offense Description:
o Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any corrosive
substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by
means of any substance which is deleterious to the human
body to inhale, swallow, or receive into the blood, or by
means of any animal, shall be liable for this offense.

It is further submitted that the accused is not liable for the offence
under section 428 and section 377 as there is no evidence indicating
the death of an animal by the accused as alleged in the facts.

As per the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 377 of the IPC states: "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".

It is further submitted before the court that there is the lack of intent
from the view of the accused for the killing of the dog named Indu.
As per Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the
offence of mischief by killing or maiming an animal. The prosecution
has not been able to provide any record of evidential substance to
prove there has been any killing of the animal of any kind.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this court that the accused

fervently denies any such allegation of killing of the animal or having
any type of carnal intercourse against the nature in the ashram.

PRAYER FOR RELIEFS

It is therefore, the Counsel for the accused humbly submits that this
Learned Judicial Magistrate I Court may graciously be pleased in the
light of arguments advanced and authorities cited to adjudge and
declare that,
1) The accused be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
2) The de facto complainant who brought a false case to the Court, be
levied with heavy cost for bringing upon false litigation on to A-1, A-
2 and A-3 under section 250 Cr.P.C.
And pass any order or orders as this Court may deem fit in the
interest of equity, justice, fairness and good conscience.