RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF LAW, KAKINADA

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO:-1

Academic Year 2015-16

Ganesh v State of Andhra Pradesh

Jyoti is a freelance journalist who was residing with her mother and sister. On 27th
January 2009 at around 8.30p.m., she was having her coffee at a popular Yathi Cafe House at
Kakinada in E.G.District of Andhra Pradesh.

Rama Mohan who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Kakinada was having
coffee at the same place. He found Jyoti fascinating and three photographs. Jyoti instantly
objected to this move. Rama Mohan told her that , she caught his fancy for clicking those
photographs. She told him to delete those photographs at once otherwise remain prepared to
face dire consequence as it amounted to eve teasing and she will report the matter. Rama
mohan ridiculed her in public saying that “entire system is in my control and no one can harm
me.” He left the place with those photographs.

She narrated the whole story before the TV9 News Channel” where she was an employe.
Within an hour this news was telecast throughout the state. After telecasting it she went to the
police station on 28th January 2009 around 8.00 a.m. Where she gave her complaint which was
registered as first information report with 233/2009 under section 354 read with section 506 of
the Indian Penal code. Investigation was completed and police filed charge sheet before
magistrate,Kakinada.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class took cognizance based on this.
Aganinst this filing of the charge sheet, Rama Mohan approached the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Ganesh was the Superrintendent of Police, East Godavari. He was known as a strict
disciplinarian and an officer with human touch. The crime rate at East Godavari had come
down 40% after Ganesh has assumed office. His term was extended in August 2008,on the
request of a Member of Parliament of the constituency and also on public demand. He had
become the most popular and the best Superrintendent of East Godavari. Since 2007,there were
no cases of eve teasing filed in the District.

Rama Mohan was summoned by Ganesh ,on 29th January 2009 at 11.00 a.m.Rama Mohan
appeared at the SP’s office where he was made to stand and hold Mr.Rama Mohan today you
will not be permitted to sit as you have polluted the environment.Ganesh reprimanded Rama
Mohan for half an hour for which he felt offended,insulted and humiliated.The entire incident
was witnesses by Sitaram and Seshu Prasad stationed as police constables at the SP’s office
who entered into the room after hearing the loud voice of Ganesh.

Rama Mohan left the SP’s office and headed towards the nearest police station.At around
11.45 a.m he lodged a complaint against Ganesh which was registered as first information
report under the Andhra Pradesh scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act,1989 (hereinafter referred as POA Act) . His major averment in the complaint
was “ I was insulted at the SP’s office in the name of my caste. The precise words in the
complaint stated that the SP said ‘you have polluted the environment “ which indicates the
humiliation in the name of caste. Incidentally, he belonged to the Mala Dasari caste in the
state. He further averted that Ganesh wants to harass him and used Jyoti his distant niece to lay
a plot against him.

The investigation was commenced by the Police Sub-Inspector, Chakravarthy on 30th

January 2009. However Chakravarthy Commenced the investigation without verifying the
caste certificate of Rama Mohan. Ganesh filed an application for anticipatory bail before the
high court of Andhra Pradesh which was rejected on the ground that first information report
has already been lodged. On 3rd February Ganesh was arrested and confined to his house by
Chakravarthy. On 25th February 2009,Police submitted the report before special court
established under the POA Act,1989 directly. Special Judge took cognizance. Special court
framed the charges under section 3(1) (vii), Section 3(1) (x) and section 3(2) (vii) of the POA
Act. Prosecution filed an application of addition of charges under section 120B of Indian penal
Code which was granted by the Special Judge.

Ganesh contended that the complaint against him was in order to injure his reputation. He
also contended that he admonished Rama Mohan for his irresponsible behaviour as he has
tainted the police department.

Special Judge Kakinada convicted Ganesh for the offences punishable under section 120 B
and 166 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six
months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-

Ganesh was also convicted of offences punishable under section 3(1) (vii).Section 3(1)(x)
and section 3(2) (vii) of the POA Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for term of one year.

In the mean while, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through the impugned judgment
quashed the First Information Report 233/2009 as well as investigation stating that Rama
Mohan was indicated by its own department for belonging to the weaker section of the Society.
The State of Andhra Pradesh by way of special Leave Petition approaches the Supreme Court
of India.

Ganesh filed an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. His major line of
contention was procedural lapses and essential technicalities. The High Court of Andhra
Pradesh without considering the technicalities dismissed the appeal. Ganesh filed a special
Leave petition which was admitted by the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court clubbed both the cases and the matter will heard on 12th April 2015.

Submit Oral and Written Arguments on behalf of both the parties.

 RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF LAW, KAKINADA

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO: - 2

Academic Year 2015-16

Sandhya V Krishna Mohan

The marriage between Krishna Mohan and Sandhya was solemnised on

01-01-2013 according to the Hindu Rituals and Customs in Kakinada. Krishna
Mohan is working as a junior assistant in a Private Educational Institution in
Kakinada.

His wife’s parents are residing at Vizianagaram. Sandhya- wife of Krishna

Mohan went to her parent’s house for delivery. They are blessed with a male
child (Rambabu). After the delivery of the child, Krishna Mohan went to
vizianagaram to his in-laws house and requested his wife to come to Kakinada.

His wife asked Krishna Mohan to join her parental house and refuses to
husband’s request to live with him in the matrimonial home as her mother alone
residing in vizianagaram and her father living in Satsang Ashramam in
Anakapalle and without taking care of her mother. Her father is a retired central
government employee and getting Rs.20,000/- pension. Out of the total amount
of the pension, he used to give Rs.15, 000/- monthly to his wife.

Krishna Mohan never liked to stay in wife’s parental home. He filed a

petition before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada seeking a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the behavior of the wife is improper
and she was not entitled to insist him to become a resident son in –law. The court
granted a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the husband.

Aggrieved by the Order of the Court, Sandhya filed an appeal before High Court
of A.P.

Argue both sides and submit written memorials/Arguments

 RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF LAW, KAKINADA

MOOT COURT PROBLEM NO: - 3

Academic Year 2015-16

The appellant was implicated and charged under sections 363,366 and 376
of the IPC under the following circumstances.

On 01-09-2012 at about 17.15 hours when wife of the complainant returned

from the market purchasing vegetable, she could not find her daughter at home.
On enquiring from one Ganga, she came to know that the knowledge that the
appeallant had come to their house and had a talk with their daughter. Thereafter,
the appeallant went towards the market and after some times, Prosecutrix also
went towards the market.

The complainant inquired from the shop of the uncle of the appeallant and
he was told that the appellant and the prosecutrix had gone towards Kakinada
Bus Stand. The complainant rushed to the Kakinada bus stand, but could not find
the appellant or the prosecutrix there. It is also the case of the prosecution that
son of the uncle of the appellant told that he had seen the appellant and the
prosecutrix- Anita at the Kakinada bus stand some time ago. Since the
prosecutrix could the said effect was registered by the complainant on 05-09-
2012 with Sarpavaram police station.Two days after the said complaint, the
appellant surrendered himself before the police on 07-09-2012.

Thereafter, necessary panchanama came to be drawn and statements of the

appellant and prosecutrix were recorded. They were also sent for medical
examination. Clothes of the appellant and prosecutrix were seized in the presence
of panchas and were sent for analysis to FSL, Hyderabad. The investigation
revealed sufficient evidence against the appellant. This led to his formal arrest on
30-11-2012.Thereafter, as the case was exclusively tribal by the court of sessions,
the case was committed to sessions court, Kakinada.

After framing of the charge, the trial proceeded. The prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses to prove the charge.

After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was
recorded under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure.In his statement,the
appeallant stated that he was innocent.His defence was that he and prosecutrix
were in love with each other and had tied nuptial knot with each other and had
tied nuptial knot with free consent of the victim.Marriage between them was
colemnized as per Hindu rite on 09-03-2012 at Kakinada which was got
registered as well.The appellant produced memorandum of marriage as Ex.43
depicting registration of marriage,issued by the marriage Registrar,Kakinada.The
appellant, thus, maintained that a false case was filed against him.He,however,did
not examine any defence witness.

After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that
charges against the appellant under sections363, 366 and 376 IPC were fully
proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It was primarily on the ground that the
prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of the incident i.e.01-09-
2012 and, therefore, there was no question of giving any consent by her and the
alleged consent was of no value.

The appellant herein was put on trial and convicted for offences under sections
363,366 as well as 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for committing the aforesaid offences as under:

(a) For committing the offence punishable under section 363 IPC, the trial court
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and also
imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- with the clause that in default of payment of fine,the
appellant will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(b) Qua the conviction recorded for the offence punishable under section 366 of
the IPC,sentenced imposed by the trial court was five years imprisonment with
fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two months.

(c) For committing the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC, the
appellant was imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and
also fine of Rs.45,000/- with the stipulation that in the event,appellant defaults in
paying the fine,he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year.

The aforesaid amount of Rs. 45,000/-, if payable by the appellant as fine, was
ordered to be paid to the victim as a compensation. All the sentences were to run
concurrently.

In the appeal preferred by the appellant against the aforesaid conviction, the
High Court has affirmed the conviction, as accorded by the trial court.
However,at the same time, it has modified the sentences by reducing it to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years instead of 7 years for the offence
punishable under section 376 of the IPC. With this solitary modification resulting
into partial allowing of the appeal, rest of the judgment and sentence dated 15-09-
2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada has been
affirmed.

Hence, this appeal arises out of the judgment passed by High Court of A.P by the
appellant/Accused.

Argue on behalf of both the parties and submit written memorials/arguments.