INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent
TEAM CODE:

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE:
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

IN
INTHE
THEHON’BLE
HON’BLESUPREME
SUPREMECOURT
COURTOF
OFOZALA
INDIA

Petition filed under Article 134 of Indian Constitution

Petition filed under sec 439A of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Criminal Appeal No: ________/2022
IN THE MATTER OF

5 PANCHAS, SI BALAYYA
BABU, Ct RAVI TEJA, PAWAN -----------------------------------------------------------------
Case No: /2021
APPEALLANT
KALYAN, CHERRY, BUNNY
V.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENT

Criminal Appeal No: ________/2022

IN
IN THE
THE MATTER
MATTER OF
OF

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH-------------------------------------------------------------------APPEALLANT

Ms. QUANTISA --------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER
V.
V.
SI BALAYYA BABU, Ct RAVI -------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDANT
TEJA, Ct PAWAN
UNION KALYAN,
OF OZALA & STATE OF ASPAR ---------------------------------- RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ---------------------------------------------------------- 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES --------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-
20
I. WHETHER ALL THE CONVICTS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER OF ASHOK AND
PRIYA?
A. WHETHER 5 PANCHAS, CHERRY AND BUNNY ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
B. WHETHER SI BALAYYA BABU, CONISTABLES RAVI TEJA AND PAWAN
KALYAN ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
II. WHETHER POLICE PARTY IS GUITY OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF
SANTHA DEVI?

PRAYER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

2
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUTES:
1. Indian Constitution
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. LIST OF BOOKS:
1. Constitutional Law of India, J.N Pandey, 56th Edition.
2. Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain, 7th Edition.
3. Constitutional Law, S.R. Myneni, 1st Edition.
4. Constitutional Law of India, Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, 2nd Edition
5. Indian Penal Code, K.D Gaur, 6th Edition.
6. The Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 34th edition.
7. Indian Penal Code, S.N. Mishra, 12th Edition.
8. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 22nd Edition.

3. CASE LAWS:
1. State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj)
2. State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad),
3. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006 (5) SCC 475)
4. Laxmi Kachhawaha vs. The Rajasthan State (AIR 1999 Raj HC 254)
5. State of UP vs. Krishna Master ((2010) 12 SCC 324)
6. Bhagwan Das vs. State (Delhi NCT) Cr Appeal No. 1117 of 2011
7. Smt. Chandrapati vs State of Haryana and Others on 27 may, 2011
8. Latika Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. (AIR 2012 SC 1515)

3
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

4. WEBSITES:
1. www.lexisnexis.com

2. www.manupatra.com

3. www.papers.ssrn.com

4
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honourable supreme court of India has the jurisdiction to try and dispose of the instant
matter under:

Article 134: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence
in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on
appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or
has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such
provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of Article 145 and to
such conditions as the High Court may establish or require
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain
and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
specified in such law.

Hence, The Honourable Supreme Court of India has the Jurisdiction to try and dispose of
the instant matter under Article 134 of Indian Constitution.

5
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Priya aged 19 yrs., and, Ashok aged 22 yrs., residing in village Gundimeda, Dist.
Krishna, Andhra Pradesh. Priya belonged to a traditional Brahmin family while
Ashok, son of field worker, was a Dalit. Ashok and Priya both loved each other.
When somebody informed about their love to Priya’s father Radheshyam.
Radheshyam got a suitable Brahmin match for Priya. Priya, feeling helpless,
somehow prevailed upon Ashok to marry her as per Arya Samaj rites in a city temple.

2) On 14 April, 2021, at odd hours in the night, they eloped from the village and got
married on 16 April, 2021. On 15 April 2021, Radheshyam, unable to trace Priya and
Ashok reported the matter to the police alleging that Ashok, by criminal intimidation,
has kidnapped his minor daughter Priya. Accordingly, F.I.R. no. 355/2021 u/s.
363/506 IPC was registered and the investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector
Balayya Babu. The I.O. accompanied by Ct. Ravi Teja and Ct. Pawan Kalyan started
search for Priya and Ashok but could not trace them.

3) The IO called Ashok’s mother Shanthi Devi to the police station every day. She was
made to sit there for long hours and pressurized to reveal the possible hideouts of
Ashok and even threatened to implicate her also. Shanthi Devi pleaded helplessness in
the matter. Unable to bear the mental torture by the police party (IO and Constables
Ravi Teja and Pawan Kalyan) Shanthi Devi jumped into a well and committed
suicide.

4) On 15 May 2021, at 7 p.m., Priya and Ashok, of their own, returned to the village.
The police immediately apprehended Ashok and brought him to the police station.
The IO recorded the statement of Priya the next day wherein she stated that she was a
major and had gone with Ashok of her own will and being adult, got married to
Ashok as per Arya Samaj rites. She also produced her 10th Pass Certificate as proof
of age and Marriage Certificate as proof of marriage. Priya struck to her statement u/s

6
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

164 Cr. P. C. which was recorded by concerned Magistrate before whom she was
taken by the IO the same evening. She pleaded that Ashok be released as he has not
committed any offence

5) The police party, on reaching the village, handed over both to P-1 to P-5, the five
Panchas of the village Panchayat. The Panchas called an urgent Panchayat meeting to
be attended by entire village community including Priya’s family members. The
agitated community exhorted the Panchas for strict action against Ashok and Priya for
their highly shameful and condemnable act and set a lesson to others that such a
marriage between high caste and low caste will never be tolerated by them under any
circumstances. Radheshyam vainly pleaded mercy for his daughter.

6) P-1 to P-5 decided to give exemplary punishment to Ashok and Priya and announced
a dictate that both be confined in a house situated in a field quite away from the
village and that nobody should provide them with food and even water. They deputed
two lathi wielding youth namely Cherry and Bunny to lock the said house from
outside and keep constant vigil so that nobody should approach Ashok and Priya.

7) The confinement continued for 4 days. Unable to bear hunger and thirst, Ashok and
Priya fell unconscious. When the two vigilantes did not find any movement from the
house, they peeped inside and found both Ashok and Priya lying motionless on the
floor. They informed P-1 to P-5 accordingly. All presumed that both Priya and Ashok
are dead. P-1 to P-5 asked Cherry and Bunny to heap dry grass on the house and set it
on fire, evidently with a view to wipe out any sign of crime.

8) In the meantime, Radheshyam informed the higher police officials about the entire
episode as the local police did not respond to his entreaties. On 20 May, 2021, a
police party headed by DSP Prabhas visited the site, got the fire extinguished,
recovered half burnt bodies of Ashok and Priya and sent them for post mortem.

7
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

9) On the basis of the complaint by Radheshyam F.I.R. u/s. 302/ 120B/201/34 IPC was
registered and the accused P-1 to P-5, Cherry, Bunny, SI Balayya Babu and
Constables Ravi Teja and Pawan Kalyan were arrested for entering into a conspiracy
to commit murders of Ashok and Priya. The IO found that SI Balayya Babu and
Constables. Ravi Teja and Pawan Kalyan have also committed the offence of
abetment of suicide of Shanthi Devi and accordingly section 306 IPC was also added.

10) In due course the post mortem report had also been received which stated that the
death of Ashok and Priya was “due to burn injuries”. After investigation, the IO
submitted the Charge Sheet in the Court for trial of the accused for committing above
offences.

11) The Trial Court observed that it was a clear case of “Honor Killing” for which the
guilty deserve no leniency. All the accused were held guilty of entering into a
conspiracy and committing murders of Ashok and Priya. P-1 to P-5, Cherry and
Bunny were awarded capital punishment whereas SI Balayya Babu, Ct. Ravi Teja and
Ct. Pawan Kalyan were awarded life punishment. The police party was also held
guilty for the offence of abetment to suicide of Shanthi Devi and awarded 5 yrs. RI.

12) All the convicted persons appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the
judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court, maintained capital punishment to P-1 to
P-5, Cherry and Bunny for the said offences committed by them. SI Balayya Babu,
Constables Ravi Teja and Pawan Kalyan were held guilty for committing the offence
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and were awarded 7 years of rigorous
imprisonment. The police party was acquitted of the offence of abetment of suicide.

13) Now all the convicts have approached the Apex Court against the impugned judgment
of the High Court. The State has also appealed against the said judgment whereby the
police party has been absolved of committing the offence of abetment to commit
suicide of Shanthi Devi.

8
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER ALL THE CONVICTS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER OF ASHOK

AND PRIYA?

__________ISSUE II___________

WHETHER POLICE PARTY IS GUITY OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF

SANTHA DEVI?

9
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER ALL THE CONVICTS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER OF

ASHOK AND PRIYA?
A. WHETHER 5 PANCHAS, CHERRY AND BUNNY ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
It is Humbly Submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that 5 Panchas along with
Cherry and Bunny are liable as follows:
1. All 5 Panchas are liable for Wrongful confinement under Section 340 and 342 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. All 5 Panchas along with Cherry and Bunny are liable:
a) for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120A and 120B of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
b) for Common intention under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
c) for Committing Murder in the name of Honor Killing under Section 300 and
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
B. WHETHER SI BALAYYA BABU, CONISTABLES RAVI TEJA AND
PAWAN KALYAN ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
It is Humbly Submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that SI Balayya Babu, Ct Ravi
Teja and Ct Pawan Kalyan are liable Disobeying directions of law by not Registering FIR of
Radhe Shyam under Section 154 of code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and Section 166A(c) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER POLICE PARTY IS GUITY OF ABETMENT OF

SUICIDE OF SANTHA DEVI?
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the Police party i.e, SI Balayya Babu,
Ct Ravi Teja & Ct Pawan Kalyan are not liable for Abetment of Suicide because there is no
Proofs and witnesses regarding the issue.

10
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER ALL THE CONVICTS ARE GUILTY OF MURDER OF

ASHOK AND PRIYA?
A. WHETHER 5 PANCHAS, CHERRY AND BUNNY ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
It is Humbly Submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that 5 Panchas along with
Cherry and Bunny are liable as follows:
1. All 5 Panchas are liable for Wrongful confinement under Section 340 and 342 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. All 5 Panchas along with Cherry and Bunny are liable:
a. for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120A and 120B of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
b. for Common intention under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
c. for Committing Murder in the name of Honor Killing under Section 300 and
302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

I. ALL 5 PANCHAS ARE LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT UNDER

SECTION 340 AND 342 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code;
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person
from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to have committed the
offence of wrongful confinement.” 1
The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:
1. The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of
wrongful restraint must be present)
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.

1. Sec 340, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

11
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever wrongfully confines any person
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine 2
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both The
classification of this offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate.
Further, it is Compoundable by the person confined with the permission of the court.

In the case of State  of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248
Guj),3 it was discussed by the court that “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of
actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an
impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind
that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that the complainant would be
forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use
of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad ),4 the complainant was detained in the
police station when this was brought to court, the accused claimed that complainant was at
liberty to go away from the police station at any time. The Court remarked that when a citizen
enters into a police station, the police officers’ authority prevails in that jurisdiction and they
entertain it with a ruddy manner. Court held that the accused committed the offence of
wrongful confinement.

In the present case, the dictate given by Panchas to confine Ashok and Priya in the
Soiltary house, locked from outside for 4 days amounts to wrongful confinement. Hence, The
Act of confining Ashok and Priya in a Hut is amounted to Wrongful confinement under
Section 340 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is Punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

2. Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj)
4. State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad),

12
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

II. ALL 5 PANCHAS ALONG WITH CHERRY AND BUNNY ARE LIABLE
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that all 5 Panchas along with
Cherry and Bunny are liable:
1. For criminal conspiracy under section 120A and 120B of Indian Penal code, 1860.
2. For common intention under section 34 of Indian penal code, 1860.
3. For committing murder in the name of Honor killing under section 300 and 302 of
Indian penal code, 1860.

1. FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 120A AND 120B OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
Section 120A of the I.P.C. defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement of two or more
persons to do or cause to be done 5.
1. An illegal act, or;
2. An act that is not illegal by illegal means.
Section 43 of the I.P.C. defines the term ‘illegal’ as everything that is an offence or is
prohibited by law or furnishes ground for a civil action.
The Provison attached to Section 120A provides that a mere agreement to commit an offence
shall amount to criminal conspiracy and no overt act or illegal omission is required to be
proved. Such overt act is necessary only when the object of the conspiracy is the commission
of an illegal act not amounting to an offence. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
1. Two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which
is not illegal by illegal means i.e. there must be at least 2 persons who conspire. 
However, a person may be indicted alone for the offence of criminal conspiracy if
the other co-conspirators are unknown, missing or dead.
2. Joint evil intent to do an illegal act or an act that is not illegal by illegal means is
necessary.
5.Section 120A IPC, 1860.

13
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Section 120B of I.P.C. provides for punishment of criminal conspiracy-
1. Where the criminal conspiracy is to commit a serious offence: In cases where the
conspiracy is to commit an offence-
1. Punishable with death, 
2. Imprisonment for life or
3. Rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards 
4. and where no express punishment is provided under the Code for such conspiracy,
every person who is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2. Criminal conspiracy to commit offences other than those covered in the first
category: Whoever is a party to such a criminal conspiracy shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with
fine or with both. 

2.FOR COMMON INTENTION UNDER SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL

CODE, 1860.
Section 34 of IPC, 1860 is defined as– “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.
The section can be explained as if two or more people commit any criminal offense and with
the intent of committing that offense, then each of them will be liable for that act as if the act
was committed by them individually.
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperors 6  case was one of the earliest instances in which
another individual was sentenced by the tribunal for the act of another in support of common
intention. The facts of the case are, on August 3, 1923, a group of armed people entered the
police station. They asked the postmaster for cash where he counted the cash. They shot at
the postmaster from the pistol, causing the postmaster to die on the spot. Without taking cash,
all the accused ran away.
3. State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj)
4. State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad),

14
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

The police were able to capture as a guard Barendra Kumar Ghosh who stood outside the post
office. Barendra contended that he was merely standing as a guard but the court convicted
him for murder under 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860. After that his appeal was rejected
when he appealed to Privy Council. 
Section 34 is designed to deal with a situation in which it might be hard to differentiate
between the criminal acts of individual party members acting in favor of a common intention
of all, or to prove precisely what part each of them took. The reason why all are found guilty
in such instances is that an accomplice’s existence provides encouragement, help, safety, and
trust to an individual who is actually engaged in an illegal act. Accordingly, every person
who is engaged in the commission of a criminal offense is held liable by virtue of his
involvement in the act performed, even if the specific act in question was not performed by
either member of the group.

Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: The said criminal act must have been
performed by more than one person. If the criminal act was a fresh and independent act
that springs entirely from the doer’s mind, the others will not be liable simply because they
intended to be involved with the doer in another criminal act when it was done. The acts
committed in the criminal action by different confederates may be different, but they all have
to participate and engage in the criminal enterprise in one way or another.

Common intention: The core of joint liability under Section 34 resides in the presence of a

common intention to commit a criminal act in support of the common goal of all group
members. The term ‘common intention’ means a prior concert, i.e. a meeting of minds and
involvement of all group members in the execution of that plan. The acts performed by each
participant may vary in personality but must be carried out with the same common intention. 

Since, in present situation the acts done by all 5 Panchas along with Cherry and Bunny
having common intention 7
to kill Ashok and Priya falls under Section 34 of Indian penal
Code, 1860. Hence, All of them are liable under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

15
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

3. FOR COMMITTING MURDER IN THE NAME OF HONOR KILLING

UNDER SECTION 300 AND 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

Human Rights Commission defines “honour killings” as an act of violence, usually murder,
committed by the male members of the family against the female members, who according to
them have brought dishonor upon the family.
In simple words, honour killing is defined as death which is awarded to the man or the
woman of the family for mainly:
 marrying against the wishes of the family,
 having pre-marital or extra-marital affairs,
 marrying outside ones caste, religion or clan, and
 in matters of sexuality.
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code 8
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Hence, the act of all five Panchas along with cherry and bunny amounts to murder
which is named as Honor killing. Hence, they are liable for murder under Section 300 and
302.

8. Section 300 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

16
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

Honour Crimes are violative of Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 15 (Prohibition of
discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), and Article 21
(Protection of life and personal liberty). Infact, Right to marry out of a person’s own free will
is a component of Article 21 under the Constitution of India, 1950. 
Acts such as the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (aimed at protecting the human
rights from being violated), National Legal Services Authority (established under the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 to provide free and speedy services to the weaker sections of
the society) and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (enacted to prevent the atrocities arising out
of the marriages in India) are in place in order to protect the interests of the victimized
sections of the society.
The Indian Majority Act, 1875
Under section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, every person residing in India shall, upon
completion of 18 years, attain the age of majority, unless otherwise stated in his or her rule. 
In the case of a guardian assigned to such a minor, however, the age of majority would be 21
and not 18. The Act becomes applicable in cases where the khap panchayats have forcefully
split married couples, otherwise eligible for such marriage because of age, etc. This is an
apparent case of breach of the provisions of this Act.
in the iconic judgment of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 9 it was observed by the
Supreme Court that, since India is a free and democratic nation, once the person attains the
age of majority he/she has a right to marry whosoever.
The Indian legal system by its insusceptibility, to a certain extent, understands the degree and
frequencies of the negligence and monstrosities committed by standing courts of the Khap. 
Laxmi Kahhwaha vs. The Rajasthan State 10 a Public Interest litigation suit (PIL) has been
reported in the Rajasthan High Court, drawing the court’s attention to unconstitutional
panchayat status administrations on the weaker section of the general population, especially
women. The court observed that these panchayats had no position whatsoever to pass social
blacklists, or impose any fine on someone and ignore a person’s basic rights.

9. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006 (5) SCC 475)

10. Laxmi Kachhawaha vs. The Rajasthan State (AIR 1999 Raj HC 254)

17
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

In the case of UP vs. Krishna Master 11, the Supreme Court took a remarkable step by
punishing the three people accused of honour killing the six people. 
The bench also found that it would fall into the selves of unusual cases brought by the court
to kill the whole family on the weak ground to ignite the dignity of the family. This has been
replicated in Bhagwan Das vs. State (Delhi NCT) 12 where the court held that everyone
should know that the scaffold was awaiting the production of honorary slaughter. Punjab
sentenced five of the seven inmates to life imprisonment in Manoj and Babli Murder 13.

B. WHETHER SI BALAYYA BABU, CONISTABLES RAVI TEJA AND

PAWAN KALYAN ARE LIABLE OR NOT?
It is Humbly Submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that SI Balayya Babu, Ct Ravi
Teja and Ct Pawan Kalyan are liable For Disobeying directions of law by not Registering FIR
of Radhe Shyam under Section 154 of code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and Section 166A(c)
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 14.
The practice of refusal on the part of police officers to register FIR, no matter how barbaric
it seems, is pretty common. The reasons could be many, such as protecting the accused
persons who are powerful and have high contacts or harassing the poor victims, or
irresponsible behaviour of public servants, etc. Whatever may be the reason, it is the victim
who suffers. The victim who already has been through trauma due to the commission of an
offence is put through the whole agony once again when s/he is denied for lodging the
report. Whenever a cognizable offence is committed, the filing of an FIR is technically the
first stage for initiation of criminal proceedings, and hence the first step for seeking justice. It
means when the aggrieved person is denied to record his complaint, he is denied justice
altogether. In present case, Police party denied to record FIR for the complaint given by
Radheshyam which implies denying of justice altogether.

11. State of UP vs. Krishna Master ((2010) 12 SCC 324)

12. Bhagwan Das vs. State (Delhi NCT) Cr Appeal No. 1117 of 2011
13. Smt. Chandrapati vs State of Haryana and Others on 27 may, 2011
14. Section 166A(c) of Indian Penal Code, 1860

18
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

The criminal law of our country also deals with this deplorable practise which is carried
out quite ordinarily these days. Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code lays down punishment
for a public servant who fails to record information. Specifically, sub-section (3) of the
section provides that failure on the part of a public servant to register any information u/s
154(1) of the Cr.P.C. with relation to the offences u/s 326A, 326B, 354, 354B, 370, 370A,
376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E or 509 of the IPC, would
attract this section and the said public servant shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which must not be less than 6 months but may extend to 2 years, and he shall also
be liable to fine.
The most crucial landmark judgement when it comes to matters relating to the registration of
FIR is the Latika Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. 15 The Supreme Court in this judgement laid
down eight guidelines that are to be followed by the police till date. The essential question
that arose in the case of Latika Kumari was, “whether it is binding for the police to lodge an
FIR when it is informed about the occurrence of an offence which is cognizable in nature?”.
The Apex Court affirmatively answered this question and ruled that it is obligatory for the
police to lodge an FIR on receiving information that discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence. 
The Court further held that if it is clear that a cognizable offence has been committed, the
police is not required to do any kind of preliminary inquiry. It means that the preliminary
inquiry is valid merely to the extent of determining whether the offence committed is
cognizable or not. Furthermore, the Apex Court clearly mentioned the kind of cases in which
the preliminary inquiry could be conducted by the police, which are family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and cases with abnormal
delay. Also, the Court ordered that the preliminary inquiry must be started within 7 days of
receiving the information of offence.
The Police party are Liable for Disobeying directions of law by not Registering FIR of
Radhe Shyam under Section 154 of code of Criminal Procedure,1973 and Section 166A(c) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860

15. Latika Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. (AIR 2012 SC 1515)

19
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

ISSUE 2: WHETHER POLICE PARTY IS GUITY OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF

SANTHA DEVI?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the Police party i.e, SI Balayya
Babu, Ct Ravi Teja & Ct Pawan Kalyan are not liable for Abetment of Suicide because there
is no Proofs and witnesses regarding the issue.
We know that in a country like India an individual in a typical society act as per the
restrictions/norms of the society. In simple words, they live their life only for society but not
for themselves. At the same time in a village atmosphere it is more likely be affected with
societal behaviour. In cases like love affairs and eloping from the village etc… effects their
family where people in society defames the whole family which brings bad name to the past
generations and future generations also. Due to this the family members will be affected with
psychological trauma.
In this present case also, Shanta Devi went through the same situations of psychological
trauma due to Societal restrictions. Unable to bear she jumped into the well and committed
suicide. Here, the police party in regard of Abetment of suicide of Shanta devi there is no
clear proof that due to police party only she committed suicide. The Police party just called
Ashoks mother Shantha Devi only to investigate about the whereabouts of Ashok and here
there is nothing else more but only to do their job. Moreover, here for the police party there is
no intention to kill Shanta Devi.

The suicide of Shanta devi is purely due to the societal conditions in which she lived. It is
humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the Police party i.e, SI Balayya Babu, Ct
Ravi Teja & Ct Pawan Kalyan are not liable for Abetment of Suicide because there is no
Proofs and witnesses regarding the issue.

Hence, my clients Police party i.e, SI Balayya Babu, Ct Ravi Teja & Ct Pawan Kalyan are
innocent and are not liable for Abetment of Suicide.

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that to upheld the decision oh High
court.

20
 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
KL COLLEGE OF LAW
Memorial on behalf of Respondent

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly prayed that this honourable court may be pleased to:

Upheld the decision of High court

And pass any order, direction or relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,

Counsels for the Petitioner.

21