Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 37

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

UNIVERSIT
Y
TEAM
CODE
3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN

State of
Rajasthan.........................................................................APPELLAN
T
V.

1 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

Bhanwarlal and
others.....................................................................................RESPOND
ANT
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. --- of 2015

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................3
ABBREVIATION...........................................................................6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES............................................................11
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS.................................................12
ARGUEMENT ADVANCED........................................................14
PRAYER..........................................................................................34

2 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

Index of Authorities.
I.
II.

III.

The Constitution of India


Statutes.
The Indian penal code, 1860.
Criminal procedure code, 1973.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
CASES CITED.

1. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana(2003) 2 SCC 143


2. Bhupendra Sharma v. State of Himanchal Pradesh
3. Priya Patel v. State of M.P. and Anr JT 2006(6) SC 303
4. Pardeep Kumar v Union Administration, Chandigarh (2006) 10 SCC 608,
5. Imran khan v. state (nctdelhi) (2011)10SCC19
6. Bhupendra Sharma v. state of himanchal Pradesh
7. Kunhimon alias Sainudeen and etc. v. state of kerala 1988CriLJ493
8. PramodMahto and others V. state of bihar AIR1989SC1475
9. Vishwanath and others v. state of tamilnadu (2008) 5 SCC 354
10. State of Haryana v. Basti Ram AIR2013SC1307
11. Vijay @ ChineeVs.State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0522/2010
12. Dilip and anr. vs. State of M.P MANU/SC/0678/2001
13. Bishnu Prasad and another v. State of Assam (2007) 11 scc 467
14. Sidharth v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 scc 545
15. State of T.N. v. kutty (2001) 6 scc 550
16. Bhagwan Singh v. state of M.P (2003) 3 scc 21
3 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


17. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2957 SC 637
18. Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 scc 532
19. Jugendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 scc 297
20. State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 scc 75
21. ShaileshJasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2006) 2 scc 359
22. State of M.P. v. Babulal AIR 2008 SC 528
23. Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2013 (2) SCALE 533
24. MadanGopalKakkad v. Naval Dubey and another (1992) 3 scc 204
25. State of Andhra Pradesh v. BodemSundraRao AIR 1996 SC 530
26. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others AIR 1996 SC 1393
27. State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 scc 75
28. State of M.P. v. bablunatt
29. DhananjoyChatterjee v. State of W.B
30. Ravji v. State of Rajasthan
31. State of M.P. Vs. BabluNatt MANU/ SC/6478/2008
32. Mohan Anna Chavan v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/7749/2008
33. Bantu v. The State of U.P MANU/SC/7863/2008
34. Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (9) SCALE 400
35. PushpanjaliSahu Vs. State of Orissa and Anr AIR 2013 SC 1119
36. State of M.P. v. BabbuBarkare (2005) 5 SCC 413
37. State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari (2004) 8 SCC 153
38. Shimbhu and another v State of Haryana 2013 Indlaw SC 542
39. State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod Kumar (2012) 6 SCC 770
40. Ramesh kumar v. state of Haryana
41. State of Andhra Pradesh V PolamalaRaju Alias Rajarao (2000) 7 SCC 75
42. State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa (2000)4 SCC 75
43. (2007) 11 SCC 490 State of Karnataka v. Raju
44. state of M.P. Vs. BabluNatt
45. State of U.P. v. BodemSundaraRaoMANU/SC/0130/1996

IV.BOOKS/ MANUALS/ DIGESTS AND OTHER RECOGNISED TEXTS .

R.K Dayals Sexual Offences with special reference to law of Rape.


Ratanlal&Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, 1860
KD Gaur commentary on IPC, 1860
CK Takwani: Criminal Procedural Code. 1860
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal commentary on India Evidence Act, 1872.
Modi Medical Jurisprudence
Ratanlal&DhirajlalCommentry on Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

4 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

M.P Jain Constitution Of India.

V. E- Sources
www.scconline.co.in
www.manupatra.com
www.westlaw.com
www.IndianKanoon.com

ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R.

All India Reporter

5 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

ILR
AC
Anr.
Art.
ed.
HonBle
Ors
P.
Para.
S.
S.C
S.C.C.
SCR
u/s
UOI
V
i.e.
Exp.
PAN
JJB

:
Indian Law reports
:
Appeal Cases
:
Another
: Article
:
Edition
:
Honourable
:
Others
:
Page
:
Paragraph
:
Section
:
Supreme Court
:
Supreme Court Cases
:
Supreme Court Reporter
:
Under Section
:
Union of India
:
Versus
:
That is
:
Explanation
:
Panchnama
:
Juvenile Justice Board

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


The Appellant has the honour of submitting written submission before this Honble Supreme
Court of India through special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution. This sincere
submission of the counsels is further substantiated in the Written Submissions.
All of which is most respectfully submitted.

Counsels for Appellant


Place: India

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


1.

Ms.Shalini aged about 20 years, the complainant, was a nursing student and was

living

in a Hostel at Jaipur. On 20th December, 2014Bhanwarlal the choukidar and tribhuwan the
multimillionaire spoilt student kidnapped her carried her to the room of choukidar where Mohan
and Sohan were drinking heavy liqour. Only 3-4 students were there in the hostel and staff
member and warden were not present. She was gang-raped by all.
2.

She was thrown outside the backside of the hostel about 4 am about 5am she came to little

senses and noticed by certain paasersby she was thaken to the police station where fir was lodged
and case under 364A,376D was registerd.
2.1 A Panchnamah was prepared. Exhibit-A-1 contains the list of articles confiscated by the
Investigation Officer viz torn out Kurta, Payjama, panty, hawaichappal, non-vegetarian food
items, tumblers, liquor bottles, drugs, cigarettes, hukka with tobacco and Matchbox, other
intoxicants, sharp knife weapon, Cash Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- etc. Four mobile cells of the 4
accused were found and seized. On checking of call list it was found (i) there had been call in
between the 4 accused in the evening at about 7.00 P.M. and (ii) two missed calls were by
Tribunvan to the Complainant on 29.5.2009. Site map was prepared which is Exhibit A-2. A
classic car Mercedes registered in the name of father of Tribhuvan and the driving licence of
Tribhuvan were found apart from one motor bike in the Campus. In the Car one bottle of foreign
liquor was also found with bed sheets, carpet, cosmetics, cigars etc. The complainant was
required to undergo medical examination within 12 hours. The Medical Jurist in the report stated
that blood was seen in the vagina and hymen of the complainant was found to have been
ruptured and damaged. The accused were also required to undergo Sperm Detection Test and
the report corroborated the claim of the complainant. Presence of semen and human spermatozoa
on the bed sheets of the mattress were noticed.
3.

The prosecutrix, (PW-1) stood to the test of cross examination. ShriRamlal (PW-2) and

ShriShyamlal (PW-3) who were passing through the road on the back side of the hostel found the
complainant in naked condition and stated about injury on the private parts, abrasions and
bruises on the breasts and cheeks and oozing of the blood and that she was in a serious condition.
8 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


Photographer (PW-4) stated as to photographs and his observations. Medical Jurist (PW5)confirmed his report and the gang rape mercilessly done. ShriDeendayal who had drawn Spot
map (PW-6) was examined. They further stated that gang rape by the 4 accused had
dehumanizing effect on the victim. The witnesses were cross examined and stood to the
testimony.
4.

ShriTribuvan accused claimed that:

4.1 He is a minor. He produced his horoscope, birth certificate and matriculation certificate
wherein he was found as having completed 17 years and 10 months on the date of event. He
smilingly stated that he had inter-course with the complainant gracefully, she was in proper
senses and co-operative. She was misused by other accused. He was declared as minor.
4.2 Shri Mohan claimed that he was out of the town, came to his house at about 11.00 P.M. and
had not gone to the room of Bhanwarlal. He denied the charge. However, the Motor bike is
registered in his name. He failed to prove his denial.
4.3 ShriSohan corroborated the rape story but claimed that he was persuaded by Tribhuvan to
have forcible inter-course for his pleasure. ShriTribhuvan was watching the action.
4.4 ShriBhanwarlal confessed guilty but stated that he had to co-operate and plan as Tribhuvan
gave him Rs. 10,000/- and also persuaded for forcible rape.
5.

The Sessions Judge, Jaipur by judgment dated 30.12.2010 convicted the accused after

holding that the prosecution has proved its case fully supported by independent witnesses and
medical evidence on record apart from the Sperm Detection Test stained clothes, mattress with
blood, drugs, intoxicants, cash etc. The Sessions Judge Court considering the defence evidence
convicted the accused as follows :(i) ShriBhawarLal, Chowkidar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life;
(ii) Shri Mohan, student to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years;
9 | Page
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


(iii) ShriSohan, student to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years; and
(iv) ShriThribuvan, having been proved as minor to be dealt with separately under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act, 2000.
(v) Damages were awarded of Rs. 10 lacs.
6. Session court also links the offence of rape to the right to life and cited the case of
BodhisatwaaGautam.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgement, the respondents accused as well as the complainant
preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 5 - 8/2011 before the Honble High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench. Taking a lenient view of the matter, on appreciation of
defence evidence and non-availability of any independent eye witness, reduced the sentence
awarded by the Sessions Court to the following period:(i) ShriBhawarLal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years;
(ii) Shri Mohan to undergo simple imprisonment for five years; and
(iii) ShriSohan to the period already undergone by the accused.
(iv) Damages were reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.
The appeals of the accused were allowed in above terms and appeal of the complainant to
enhance sentence and damages was dismissed, being bereft of any substance.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the complainant as well as the accused, BhawarLal,
Mohan and Sohan have filed appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme
Court has issued notices confining to the issues regarding the sentence and damages. The
Supreme Court also issued notice as to why the sentence awarded by the High Court to the three
accused respondents be not restored to that of the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court and
why the accused BhawarLal not to undergo life imprisonment for whole of the convicts life.
10 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

ISSUES RAISED

1) Whether or not the sentence awarded to the accused should be modified?


1.1) The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
1.2) the sentence awarded by the session court is not adequate.
1.3) Reduction of the sentence awarded to the accused by the high court is not justifiable.
2) Whether or not the compensation amount should be altered?
3) whetheror not Tribhuwan is entitled to protection under Juvenile justice (care and protection)
Act?

11 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the sentence awarded to the accused should be modified?


Accused have committed the heinous crime of gang rape. All the accused shared the common
intention as they planned to kidnap the girl and bring her to the chowkidars room where other
two accused were already present. The accused talked between themselves four hour before the
commission of the rape. From the present circumstances it is quiet evident that all of them shared
the common intention of raping the girlt. The circumstantial evidences proves it further.
In the cases of rape testimony of the prosecutrix is considered as the sole ground for the
conviction. In the present case the prosecutris stood to the test of the cross-examination. It
clearly indicates that she gave statement against the accused.The circumstantial evidence in the
present case fully corroborates the claim of the complainant. The punchnama the medical
evidences, the sperm detection test etc fully supports the prosecution case.
The other important factor that makes the conviction doubtless is the confessions made by the
accused two of the accused directly accepted the commission of the offence. The other accused
in a different manner accepted the commission of the rape by them.
Thus from all these evidences the guilt of the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt
and thus the Sentence awarded to accused should be modified.
(2). The compensation awarded to the accused should be increased.
Rape is a crime which has a very horrific characteristic that is the continuous destruction of the
life of the prosecutrix. It is not the crime, which has physical pain, but it leaves the mental status
of the victim a emotionless, desire less, and so on and so forth. The moment a women has been
12 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


the victim of the rape it is practically impossible for that woman to come back to the normal
stage of the life and to start the life from where she left. Awarding 50 Thousand rupees for that
purpose is adding insult to the injuries to the victim. Any amount of compensation is not going to
restore the life of the rape survivor but still to heal the injuries for the better treatment or the
direct injuries that have been suffered by the victim a reasonable amount of compensation must
be awarded. If a reasonable amount of the compensation is not given to the rape survivor then it
is like the direct the situation where for the undue sympathy the reasonable sympathy towards
the victim has been sacrificed for the good of nothing.
The Supreme Court in various cases has awarded the compensation from time to time as per the
gravity of the commission of the rape. Sessions court awarded the compensation of 10 lakhs
rupee which was not sufficient in the first place itself. High court reduced that amount to rupees
50 thousand which is mockery of justice by the high court.
Compensation will not change the life of the rape survivor but to compensate the loss she has
received in the form of the mental pain court should award reasonable amount of compensation
to the victim.
(3) Weather Tribhuwan is entitled to protection under Juvenile justice (care and protection)
Act?
The first submission is the doubt regarding the real age of the Tribhwan medically he is above 18
years of age and he has a driving license thus the credibility of the academic record are in
question here. The crime committed by him is the very gruesome and barbaric his act has
destroyed the life of the rape survivor.
Second submission is the age of juvenile for considering the protection. 18 year is unreasonable
for that a person of 18 years has the rationality to understand the nature and characteristic of the
crime he is committing. Law needs to be changed on that regard.

13 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

ARGUEMENT IN ADVANCE

1. Whether the sentence awarded to the accused should be modified?


The complainant who is the rape survivor finds it difficult to accept the judgment given by the
sessions court and the high court respectively. The punishment given to the accused and the
compensation awarded to the rape survivor are not adequate to call it justice thus this appeal has
been preferred to get justice.
Contention 1.1 : the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
One of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence is to prove the guilt of accused beyond any
reasonable doubt. In the present matter the accused were convicted by the session judge, Jaipur.
the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan high court sanctioned the findings of the sessions court Jaipur.
the way the present offence is committed is gruesome and the offence which has been committed
is the most heinous crime. The accused were convicted for the offence of rape and kidnapping.
The Appellants most humbly submits that sessions court rightly held the accused as guilty. The
submission of the Appellants regarding the pertaining issue is as follows.
Section 375 of the Indian penal Code defines rape

14 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


375. Rape.- a man is said commit rape who, except in the hereinafter excepted, has sexual
intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following
descriptions:First,-

against her will.

Secondly.-without her consent.


In the instant case all the accused had the sexual intercourse with the rape survivor without her
consent from the circumstantial evidences, the medical report and other evidence like the
statement of the prosecutrix and confessions made prove the entire point.
All the ingredient of section 375 are attracted and proved in the instant matter.

In Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana1, the Supreme Court observed : In order to establish an
offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, read with Explanation I thereto,the prosecution must
adduce evidence to indicate that more than one accused had acted inconcert and in such an event,
if rape had been committed by even one, all the accused will beguilty irrespective of the fact that
she had been raped by one or more of them and it is notnecessary for the prosecution to adduce
evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of theaccused. In other words, this provision
embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is the existence of common
intention; that common intention presupposes priorconcert which may be determined from the
conduct of offenders revealed during the course ofaction and it could arise and be formed
suddenly, but, there must be meeting of minds. It is notenough to have the same intention
independently of each of the offenders. In such cases, theremust be criminal sharing marking out
a certain measure of jointness in the commission ofoffence. In the present case all the accused
share the common intention as after kidnapping she has been taken to the choukidars room where
other two accused were waiting for the other two accused and prosecutrix2.

1(2003) 2 SCC 143 (para 8)


2 Refer moot problem para 1
15 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


In Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh3, the supreme court stated that In cases of
gang rape the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The
statutory intention in introducing Explanation I in relation to Section 376(2)(g) appears to have
been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such
circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a
completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims
where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them
under Section 376. In the present case all the accused had the intercourse with the rape survivor
as the confessions made by them4 the medical report and the sperm detection test confirms the
same5.
In Priya Patel v. State of M.P. and Anr 6., the Supreme Court held that By operation of the
deeming provision, a person who has not actually committed rape is deemed to have committed
rape even if only one of the group in furtherance of the common intention has committed rape.
'Common intention' is dealt with in Section 34 IPC and provides that when a criminal act is done
by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable
for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. 'Common intention' denotes
actionin concert and necessarily postulates a pre-arranged plan, a prior meeting of minds and an
element of participation in action. The acts may be different and vary in character, but must be
actuated by the same common intention, which is different from same intention or similar
intention. The sine qua non for bringing in application of Section 34 IPC that the act must be
done in furtherance of the common intention to do a criminal act. The expression 'in furtherance
of their common intention' as appearing in the Explanation to Section 376(2) relates to intention
3(2003) 8 SCC 551
4 Refer para 5 of the moot problem
5 Refer para 2 and 4 of the moot problem.
6JT 2006(6) SC 303
16 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


to commit rape. In the present case the accused talked before the commission of rape, they
successfully planned the kidnapping and participated in the rape.
In Pardeep Kumar v Union Administration, Chandigarh 7 the supreme court held that To bring the
offence of rape within the purview of Section 376(2)(g), IPC, read with Explanation 1 to this
Section, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove:(i) That more than one person had acted in concert with the common intention to commit rape on
the victim ;
(ii) That more than one accused had acted in concert in commission of crime of rape with prearranged plan, prior meeting of mind and with element of participation in action. Common
intention would be action in consort in pre-arranged plan or a plan formed suddenly at the time
of commission of offence which is reflected by element of participation in action or by the proof
of the fact of inaction when the action would be necessary. The prosecution would be required to
prove pre-meeting of mind of accused persons prior to commission of offence of rape by
substantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence; and
(iii) That in furtherance of such common intention one or more persons of the group actually
Committed offence of rape on victim or victims. Prosecution is not required to prove actual
Commission of rape by each and every accused forming group.
The present matter fulfills all these ingredients as the total no of accused are four two of the
accused acted on the plan of kidnapping the prosecutrix they talked in between themselves four
hours before the commission of the offence.
Thus from all these circumstances the explanation of 376D is proved. All the accused have
committed gang rape.
The circumstantial evidences support the prosecution case. In the Panchnamah torn out Kurta,
Payjama, panty, hawaichappal, non-vegetarian food items, tumblers, liquor bottles, drugs,
cigarettes, hukka with tobacco and matchbox,other intoxicants, sharp knife weapon, cash Rs
7(2006) 10 SCC 608,
17 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


1000/- + 50000/- etc. four mobile phone of the four accused were found.Thus the items which
were used for the commission of this crime has been seized.
After the amendment of the 1983 in the criminal law the burden of proof shifts on the accused to
prove that there was a consensual sex. Section 114 was amended and 114A was introduced.
Section 114A of the evidence act reads as
presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for the rape.
114A. In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or
clause (e) or clause (g) of the sub-section(2) of section 376 of the Indian penal code(45 of 1860)
where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and and the question is whether it was without
the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the
court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent
A lady will not give consent to the sexual intercourse with four person that is simple
commonsense that is why law presume that there was no consent. In the case of Imran khan v.
state (NCT Delhi)8 it was held that after the criminal law amendment Act of 1983 the burden of
proof as to the consensual sex shifts to the accused. In case of Bhupendra Sharma v. state of
Himanchal Pradesh9 114-A was applied.
Thus in the rape cases the burden on the prosecution is to prove that the accused were present at
the place of incident and they had sexual intercourse with the victim. And the victim has to state
that she did not consent. In the present case the prosecutrix filed the FIR and then she stood to
the test of the cross examination in the court it is evident that she stated in the court that she did
not consent. Apart from this the torn out kurta and there were abrasions and the bruises on the
breast and cheeks. All these cases inter alia states that she did not consented. The accused could
not prove that there was consensual sex.
8(2011)10SCC192
9Supra.
18 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


In the case of Vishwanath and others v. state of tamilnadu ( represented by inspector of police) 10
the prosecutris was found in the naked condition in the road the court accepted the evidence of
villager who saw the prosecutrix in that situation and with the help of mediacal evidence the
accused were convicted. In the present case, the rape the rape survivor was found in the naked
condition in the backside of the hostel and noticed by passers by11 and the medical evidence
corroborates the case as well. In the present case the circumstantial evidences supports the case
of the prosecution and proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the case of Dilip and anr.vs. State of M.P.12 it was held that "Conviction for an offence of rape
can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and
other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination." In the present case the
prosecutrix stood to the test of cross examination 13and asked for the strict punishment it shows
that she stated against the accused. In the typical Indian society it takes a lot of courage to fight
for the rape cases if someone is, fighting it prima facilely establishes that she has been ravished.
In the present case, the medical evidences supports the prosecution story as there was blood in
the vagina and the hymen was ruptured. The chemical test confirmed the presence of the semen
and the human spermatozoa on the bed sheet of the mattress.
The onus on the prosecution is to establish that the accused were present at the time and place of
the incident. The accused could be traced out in the intoxicating condition in the chowkidars
room. The Mercedes of the accused was present at the place of the incident the motor bike of the
mohan was there at the place of the incident and he failed to prove the defence of alibi.
Bhawarlal and Sohan confessed.
10 (2008) 5 SCC 354
11 Refer para 4 of the moot probleem
12 MANU/SC/0678/2001
13 Refer to the para 4 of the moot problem
19 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


Section 30 of the Indian evidence Act is also attracted. Section 30 of the Indian evidence Act has
heading consideration of proved confessions affecting person making it and others jointly trial
for same offence.
30. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession
made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such person is proved, the court
may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the
person who makes such confession.
In the case of Bishnu Prasad and another v. State of Assam 14 it was held that a confessional
statement, as is well known, is admissible in the evidence. It is a relevant fact. It may also form
the basis of the conviction,wherefor the court may have only to satisfy itself in regard to
voluntriness and truthness thereof and in given cases some corroboration thereof. In the case of
Sidharth v. State of Bihar15 the court accepted the confessions as the evidence. In the case of
State of T.N. v. kutty16, Bhagwan Singh v. state of M.P 17, Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of
Punjab18 it was held that in a cases where sufficient materials are brought on record to lend
assurance to the court in regard to truthfulness of the confession made, which is corroborated by
several independent circumstances lending assurance therto, even a retracted confessions may be
acted upon.
In the present case the accused Sohanconfessed by corroborating the rape story and said that he
has sexual intercourse with victim for the pleasure of tribhuawan who persuaded him to do
14 (2007) 11 scc 467
15 (2005) 12 scc 545
16 (2001) 6 scc 550
17 (2003) 3 scc 21
18 Air 1957 sc 637
20 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


that.Bhawarlal also confessed by stating that he co-operated and had intercourse with the
victim19. The prosecutrix was kidnapped because she was taken away from the custody her
lawful guardian without the consent of the lawful guardian. Section 363 of the IPC is proved
from the circumstances.
Thus it is clear that the accused in furtherance of common intention gang raped the rape survivor
circumstantial, medical, testimony and confession proves the case of prosecution beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Contention 1.2: the sentence awarded by the sessions court is inadequate.
Primarily it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is
to be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence
has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the
principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a
dent in his life but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is
designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not
suffer time and again for such crimes. It serves as a deterrent. True it is, on certain occasions,
opportunities may be granted to the convict for reforming himself but it is equally true that the
principle of proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be
kept in view. While carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to
see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate
collective as well as its repercussions on the victim 20. In the present case the punishment awarded
by the sessions court at the first place itself to the accused do not fulfills above principle.
In the case of Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh21, the supreme court held that speaking about the
concept of sentence, has laid down that it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence
19 Refer to Para 5 of the moot problem.
20AIR 2013 SC 2209
21(2010) 12 SCC 532
21 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on
the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the
offence." In the present case the court of sessions neglected the circumstances and awarded
lenient punishment to the other two accused.
In the case of In Jugendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 22, while dwelling upon the gravity of
the crime of rape, this Court had expressed thus: - Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not
against an individual but a crime which destroys thebasic equilibrium of the social atmosphere.
The consequential death is more horrendous. It is tobe kept in mind that an offence against the
body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars herreputation.
In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa23, a three-Judge Bench opined that the courts must hear the
loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls
of tender years and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime
needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. It was further observed
that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesty of justice and the plea
for leniency is wholly misplaced. The session court was lenient in its view while awarding the
punishment for the heinous crime of gang rape.
In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 24, while dealing with the philosophy of just punishment
which is the collective cry of the society, a two-Judge Bench has stated that just punishment
would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the
personal perception of a Judge nor self- adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions
should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of.
Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of
22(2012) 6 SCC 297
23(2000) 4 SCC 75
242013 (2) SCALE 533
22 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


discretion vested in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime
has been committed and other concomitant factors. The gang rape of a student who has not
completed 20 years of her life and in front of whom the whole future lies to live with but the
offence of rape will not allow her to live rest of her life with dignity. The chastity of the girl has
been ravished and the the persons who have create this tragedy must be awarded severally.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others 25,the Court observed the effect of rape on a victim
with anguish: - "We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and
personal integrity, butinevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the
process. Rape is notmerely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of
the victim. Amurderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of
the helplessfemale." The present case is no exception the stigma of this unfortunate event on her
life will force her to live with the depression.
In DhananjoyChatterjee v. State of W.B.26 this Court has observed that a shockingly large number
of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate,
making justice suffer by weakening the system's creditability. The imposition of appropriate
punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the society's cry for justice against the
criminal. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the
courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of
the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the

crime and the society at large while

considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.


In the present case a student of nursing was raped by four accused person after ravishing her she
was thrown outside the boundary wall of the backside of the hostel in a naked (unconscious)
condition. Her hymen was ruptured and blood came out of the vagina she was kidnapped at
11pm and thrown outside at about 4 am it means for about 5 hours she was there in the
25AIR 1996 SC 1393
26
23 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


chowkidars room she might have been raped twice, thrice as the medical report specifically
shows that the gang rape was mercilessly done. The chowkidar who is supposed to be the
protector became the rapist the spoiled student subjected the nursing student a thing to entertain
their lust. These rapist deserve the maximum punishment not the mercy of the court. Awarding a
lesser punishment than the life imprisonment is the mockery of the justice by the court of the
sessions.
The aforesaid authorities deal with sentencing in general. As is seen, various concepts,namely,
gravity of the offence, manner of its execution, impact on the society, repercussions onthe victim
and proportionality of punishment have been emphasized upon. While imposing the punishment
for the offences of rape or any sexual assault all these factors should be considerd
The offence of rape not only physically harasses the victim but it has deep routed mental agony.
The rape survivor finds it impossible to drag her life into the normal track. The offender in the
offence of rape makes the rape survivor handicapped for her entire life. Every person who enjoys
right to life with dignity is compelled to live the life full of torture. Thus imposing this amount of
sentence is violating the basic object of the justice.
Session court at the first place did the wrong by not awarding the life imprisonment to the all.
The high court has done nothing but the mockery of the justice. The intervention of honourable
supreme court is required to do the justice.
Contention1. 3. The grounds on which high court reduced the judgment are unreasonable.

The minimum statutory punishment for the gang rape is 10 year however if there are special and
adequate reasons the punishment can be decreased. If the sentence has been awarded less than 10
years then those reasons must be mentioned in the judgement. In the present case high court
reduced the sentence less than 10 years on the appreciation of the defence evidence those
specific defence evidence has not been disclosed by the high court which seems unreasonable.
The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity,
kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral
24 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest,
cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing
meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect
of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest
which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing
system. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to
which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be
irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which
the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it
should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. If for the extremely heinous
crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent
punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in BharwadaBhoginbhaiGirjibhai v. State of Gujrat 1983(2)
R.C.R (Criminal) 192 held that eye witness account in sex offences cannot be expected. Thus in
the cases of rape circumstantial evidences are the source to prove. The guilt has already been
proved. Now the question is of reduction of sentence the Petioner s most humbly submits that the
sentence awarded by the sessions court cannot be reduced further.
In the latest case of Ramesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 27 high court awarded
less than 10 year of imprisonment to the Appellants, on the ground that his sons are minor he has
one leg short thus handicapped. The honourable Supreme Court held that the above reasons are
not fit for the imposition of lesser punishment than prescribed punishment and further stated that
the reasons must be adequate and special. The present matter is not fit for awarding lesser
punishment than 10 years.
In the recent case of PushpanjaliSahuVs. State of Orissa and Anr.28 The Supreme Court gave the
ratio that "Person can not be held liable for modification of sentence, if his guilt is rightly proved
272013(9)SCALE400
25 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt." The Supreme Court also reflected upon the
dehumanizing act of physical violence on women escalating in the society. Sexual violence is not
only an unlawful invasion of the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman but also a serious blow
to her honour. It leaves a traumatic and humiliating impression on her conscience-- offending her
self-esteem and dignity.
In the case of State of M.P. v. BabbuBarkare29 the Supreme Court observed that undue sympathy
towards the accused by imposition of inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice
system by undermining the confidence of society in the efficacy of law and society could not
long endure under such serious threats. The Courts therefore are duty bound to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature and manner of execution or commission of the offence.
In the case of state of M.P v. mulli 30 where the trial court awarded the sentence of the 10 years
high court reduced it to the period of 8 months the court held that HC has not acted in
accordance of the law and Honble SC set aside the judgment of the high court.

In the case of state of M.P. v. Rakesh 31 the sessions court awarde punishment of 10 years the high
court reduced it to 8 months Supreme Court held that high court has taken a wrong decision and
SC set aside the judgment of the high court. In the case of Ramjilal and others v. state of M.P 32
the court held that no interference is required where for gang rape 10 year of imprisonment was
awarded by the court of the session on appeal high court confirmed it sc held that even 10 year of
imprisonment is not adequate but. State has not appeal in this issue hence no interference.
28AIR2013SC1119
29(2005) 5 SCC 413
30 MANU/SC/2477/2005
31 MANU/SC/2477/2005
322011 Indlaw SCO 698
26 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


In the present case interference is required if all the accused are not awarded life imprisonment
then the system of justice will be of new use.The duty of the court is to provide justice not
awarding the life imprisonment to all the accused if protecting them. The high court is protecting
the accused who for their lust ravished the entire life of the rape survivor. The nursing student
will be living in the state of agony through her rest of life. If the accused are not awarded the
highest punishment then the courts are falling short of their duty.
Thus when the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt session court at the
first place itself did not awarded the adequate punishment the high court instead of enhancing the
sentence reduced the sentence against the law as the proviso of section 376 (2) is not applicable
in the present case.

Issue 2. Whether or not the damages awarded to the victim/prosecutrix


should be increased :In the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum vs. Union of India 33, the Supreme Court
held that It is rather unfortunate that in recent times, there has been an increase in violence
against women causing serious concern. Rape does indeed pose a series of problems for the
criminal justice system. There are cries for harshest penalties, but often times such crimes eclipse
the real plight of the victim. Rape is an experience which shakes the foundations of the lives of
the victims. For many, its effect is a long-term one, impairing their capacity for personal
relationships, altering their behaviour values and generating and less fears. In addition to the
trauma of the rape itself, victims have had to suffer further agony during legal proceedings." This
331995 (1) SCC 14
27 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


Court further observed as under :- "The defects in the present system are : Firstly, complaints are
handled roughly and are not even such attention as is warranted. The victims, more often than
not, are humiliated by the police. The victims have invariably found rape trials a traumatic
experience. The experience of giving evidence in court has been negative and destructive. The
victims often say, they considered the ordeal to be even worse than the rape itself. Undoubtedly,
the court proceedings added to and prolonged the psychological stress they had had to suffer as a
result of the rape itself. In this background, it is necessary to indicate the broad parameters in
assisting the victims of rape. It is necessary, having regard to the Directive Principles contained
u/art. 38(1) of the Constitution of India to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Rape
victims frequently incur substantial financial loss. Some, for example, are too dramatized to
continue inemployment. Compensation for victims shall be awarded by the court on conviction
of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has
taken place. The Board will take into account pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of
earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of the child but if this occurred as a result of the
rape. In the present situation, the third respondent will have to evolve such scheme as to wipe out
the fears of such unfortunate victims. Such a scheme shall be prepared within six months from
the date of this judgment. Thereupon, the Union of India, will examine the same and shall take
necessary steps for the implementation of the scheme at the earliest.
In the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs.State of M.P34.the supreme court held that The traumatic stress
which a gang rape victim undergoes every moment of her life cannot be compensated by any
amount. As a matter of fact, no amount of money can restore dignity and confidence of a rape
victim. However, certain measures like adequate compensation, insurance and social security
schemes may help in rehabilitating rape victim to some extent.in this case Supreme Court
increased the compensation from 2 lakhs to 8 lakhsand in the present matter the compensation
was reduced to 50 Thousand from 10 lakhs the compensation amount must be increased.

34MANU/SC/0825/2013
28 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


In the case of C.Thekkamalai v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 1997, a writ
petition was filed on behalf of Thekkamalai and his wife, Lakshmi, to direct the Government to
pay a fair and reasonable amount as compensationto Lakshmi and Thekkamalai, to provide
adequate and suitable rehabilitative measures to them, to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor
with the consent of the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid Board for conducting the trial on
the file of the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Trichy and to provide adequate personal
protection to the abovesaid persons. It was a case of rapecommitted by the Sub-Inspector of
Police. The trial Court convicted the accused and directed him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.50,000/- to Lakshmi and Thekkamalai respectively. This Court, on appeal, confirmed the
same. In the writ petition filed, the Division Bench enhanced the compensationto Rs.5,00,000/-.
Taking note of the amount of Rs.85,000/- already paid to the victims, the Division Bench
directed the accused to deposit the balance amount in a fixed deposit.
In the recent case of JayantaKalai S/o TaramaniKalai and others V State of Tripura 35 the high
court of guwahti formed an opinion as to award the reasonable amount of the comensation.
In the case of Bodhisatwa vs. Ms.SubdhraChakrobortyhas held "rape" as an offence which is
violative of the Fundamental Right of a person guaranteedu/art. 21 of the Constitution. The Court
observed as under :"Rape is a crime not only against the person of a woman, it is a crime against
the entire society.It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep
emotional crisis. Rape istherefore the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights
and is violative of thevictims most cherished right, namely, right to life which includes right to
live with human dignitycontained in Art. 21."
In the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others v Chandrima Das (Mrs) and Others 36 the
supreme court awarded compensation to the rape survivor stated about the international aspect
and constitution of india court stated that the General Assembly, also while adopting the
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, by its Resolution dated 20th
352013 Indlaw GUW 20
36
29 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


December, 1993, observed in Art. 1 that, "violence against women" means any act of genderbased violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or
suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty,
whether occurring in public or in private life. "In Article 2, it was specified that, "violence
against women shall be understood to encompass,but not be limited to:
(a) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family including battering,
sexualabuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female
genitalmutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and
violencerelated to exploitation;
(b) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community,
including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational
institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution;
(c) Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it
occurs."
In Article 3, it was specified that "women are entitlted to the equal enjoyment and protection
of all human rights, which would include, inter alia,:
(a) the right to life, (b) the right to equality, and (c) the right to liberty and security of person.
The International Covenants and Declarations as adopted by the United Nations have to be
respected by all signatory States and the meaning given to the above words in those Declarations
and Covenants have to be such as would help in effective implementation of those
Rights.
Rape is a crime which not only physically assaults the victim but also mentally harasses her.
Every morning the rape survivor wakes up her life with the depression and agony starts. The
offence of rape changes the entire life rape survivor it drags the life of the victim to the dark well
of the disappointments. Any amount cannot compensate the crime of the rape but still for the
hope of relief or for token of relief the compensation must be awarded.

30 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


Her bright future as a nurse was on the verge of being and could possibly still be tarnished as a
result of the acts of a few who have no respect for human dignity and rights and are unfit for any
society. Thus the purpose of compensation being to provide comfort to the victim in the form of
money and having been proved and upheld that gang-rape did take place, then, based upon what
reason the hon'ble high court lowered the amount of compensation to the victim is still in the
dark.
The sessions court in its judgement had mentioned about the crime as a heinous and cruel act and
talked about fulfilling the deterrent theory of punishment. As stated in BodhisatwaGautam v.
SubhraChakroborty : It is a crime violative of the victims most cherished of all fundamental
rights: The right to life (art. 21 constitution). 3 of the 4 accused are people with power and
pecuniary affluence and they thought they could get away with everything with the use of such
power. It would only be justified and deterrent if they are made to compensate for not only her
physical wounds but also to redeem as it is impossible to erase the scar which has been left by
the crime.

Issue 3: Whether or not Tribhuwan should be considered as juvenile:

31 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


In Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 37.Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable
object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by
the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not
by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying
cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous
offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on
attaining the age of 18 years, but protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea
of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he
be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are
held.It is no doubt true that if there is a clear and unambiguous case in favour of the
juvenileaccused that he was a minor below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident and
thedocumentary evidence at least prima facie proves the same, he would be entitled for
thisspecial protection under the Juvenile Justice Act. But when an accused commits a grave
andheinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being
aminor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or
not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of
protecting the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of
justice. Hence, while the courts must be sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involvedin
cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang rape, murder and host of other
offences, the accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove
himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a
reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance, the medical evidence
based on scientific investigation will have to be given due weight and precedence over the
evidence based on school administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation
about the age of the accused. The matter however would stand on a different footing if the
academic certificates ad school records are alleged to have been withheld deliberately with
ulterior motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under challenge by the prosecution.
37AIR2012SC1608
32 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


RamdeoChauhan @ Raj Nath v. State of Assam 38reported in dealing with a similar circumstance
hadobserved which adds weight and strength to what we have stated which is quoted herein
asfollows:it is clear that the Appellants neither was a child nor near about the age of being achild
within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act or the Children Act. He is provedto be a major at
the time of the commission of the offence. No doubt, much less areasonable doubt is created in
the mind of the court, for the accused entitling himto the benefit of a lesser punishment; it is true
that the accused tried to create asmoke screen with respect to his age. But such effort appears to
have been madeonly to hide his real age and not to create any doubt in the mind of the court.
In last few years there has been debate over the age of juvenile in Salil Bali V Union of India and
another39 in offences like rapeand murder, juveniles should be triedunder the normal law and not
under the aforesaid Act and protection granted to persons up to theage of 18 years under the
aforesaid Act may be removed and that the investigating agencyshould be permitted to keep the
record of the juvenile offenders to take preventive measures toenable them to detect repeat
offenders and to bring them to justice Mr. Bali also pointed out that even in the criminal
jurisprudence prevalent in India, the age of responsibility of understanding theconsequences of
one's actions had been recognized as 12 years in the Indian Penal Code. Referring to Section 82
of the Code, Mr. Bali pointed out that the same provides that nothing is an offence which is done
by a child under seven years of age. Mr. Bali also referred to Section 83 of the Code, which
provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under
twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and
consequences of his conduct on a particular occasion. Mr. Bali, therefore, urged that even under
the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence the age of understanding has been fixed at twelve years, which
according to him, was commensurate with the thinking of other countries, such as the United
States of America, Great Britain and Canada. In regard to Canada, Mr. Bali referred to the Youth
Criminal Justice Act, 2003, as amended from time to time, where the age of criminal
38 (2001) 5 SCC 714
392013 Indlaw SC 444
33 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


responsibility has been fixed at twelve years. Referring to Section 13 of the Criminal Code of
Canada, Mr. Bali submitted that the same is inparimateria with the provisions of Section 83 of
the Indian Penal Code. In fact, according to the Criminal Justice Delivery System in Canada, a
youth between the age of 14 to 17 years may be tried and sentenced as an adult in certain
situations. Mr. Bali also pointed out that even in Canada the Youth Criminal Justice Act governs
the application of criminal and correctional law to those who are twelve years old or older, but
younger than 18 at the time of committing the offence, and that, although, trials were to take
place in a Youth Court, for certain offences and in certain circumstances, a youth may be
awarded an adult sentence. Comparing the position in USA and the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, 1974, he urged that while in several States, no set standards have
been provided, reliance is placed on the common law age of seven in fixing the age of criminal
responsibility, the lowestbeing six years in North Carolina. The general practice in the United
States of America, however,is that even for such children, the courts are entitled to impose life
sentences in respect of certaintypes of offences, but such life sentences without parole were not
permitted for those under theage of eighteen years convicted of murder or offences
involvingviolent crimes and weaponsviolations. In England and Wales, children accused of
crimes are generally tried under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, as amended by
Section 16(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. Under the said laws, the minimum
age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten years and those below the said age are
considered to be doliincapax and, thus, incapable of having any mensrea, which is similar to the
provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of Indian Penal Code. Mr. Bali has also referred to the legal
circumstances prevailing in other parts of the world wherein the age of criminal responsibility
has been fixed between ten to sixteen years. Mr. Bali contended that there was a general
worldwide concern over the rising graph of criminal activity of juveniles below the age of
eighteen years, which has been accepted worldwide to be the age limit under which all persons
were to be treated as children. Mr. Bali sought to make a distinction in regard to the definition of
children as such in Sections 2(k) and 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000, and the level of maturity of the child who is capable of understanding the
consequences of his actions. He, accordingly, urged that the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of
34 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015


the Act needed to be reconsidered and appropriate orders were required to be passed in regard to
the level of punishment in respect of heinous offences committed by children below the age of
eighteen years, such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Mr. Bali submitted that allowing perpetrators
of such crimes to get off with a sentence of three years at the maximum, was not justified and a
correctional course was required to be undertaken in that regard.same arguments were advanced
In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Ors v. Raju, Through Member, Juvenile Justice
Board And Anr.40 Similar arguments were advanced.
Appellants most humbly submits that medically Tribhuwan has been declared above 18 and he
has driving license it creates a doubt over academic records and this benefit of this doubt should
be given to prosecution he should also be awarded the same punishment.
This fact should also be kept in minds of court that 3 out of 4 Accused belong to a Powerful
Section and Political Class Families. Getting a fake Matriculation and Birth Certificate is not a
big deal for them. They might have presented forged Documents before the Honble Court so as
to save the accused from higher degree of Punishment.Considering all these relevant facts and
evidences the Counsel humbly asks this court to Judge the Accused not as a juvenile but as a
major Person who has committed such a heinous crime against woman.

40SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1953 OF 2013


35 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

Prayer

Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honble Supreme Court, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. life imprisonment should be awarded to all the accused.


2. compensation amount should be increased to 20 lakhs rupees.
3. Tribhuwan should be awarded life imprisonment as well.
And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of Appellant in ends of equity, justice
& good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully .Submitted

Place: Delhi
Date: 30/09/2013

s/d

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

36 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015

37 | P a g e
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT