MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950.

THE STATE………………. (APPELLANT)

V.

RAMESH……………………. (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLECANT

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-7

 LEGISLATION 5
 CASES REFERRED 6
 IMPORTANT DEFINATIONS 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-10

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 11

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 12-13

PLEADINGS 14-25

1. Whether Ravihad committed an offence under Section 326A r/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860? 14

2. Whether Ravihad committed an offence under section 354d of IPC? 19

3. Whether there exist common intention between the accused Raviand Mahesh? 22

4. Whether the state is justified for seeking permission for addition of charge u/s 366 of IPC? 25

PRAYER 26

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeal Cases

A.I.R All India Reporters

All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series

A.P Andhra Pradesh

Art. Article

BLJ Bombay Law Journal

Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

DPs Directive Policy

Edn. Edition

FRs Fundamental Rights

Guj Gujrat

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

Jul July

Ors. Others

QBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)

pat Indian Law Reports Patna series

r/w Read with

S Section

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Reporters

Sec. Section

3|Page
TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under section

V. Versus

4|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950.

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CASES REFERRED

 HARYANA V. BHUPINDER SINGH

 SHALU OJHA V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
 STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL (1992),
 STATE OF PUNJAB V. RAMDEV SINGH (2004)
 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. KISHAN LAL (2010) 3 SCC 427
 STATE OF PUNJAB V. GURMIT SINGH
 STATE OF U.P. V. KRISHNA MASTER

5|Page
 BOOKS REFERRED

 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2013).

 DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
 P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
 DR. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED., 2014).
 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
 R.S. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2013).
 DR. S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1ST ED., 2008).
 DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54TH EDITION, 2017.
 K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
 UNIVERAL’S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
 SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY FIFTH EDITION, 2011.
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY FOURTH
EDITION, 2012

LEGAL DATABASES

 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWW.INDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM
 WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

6|Page
IMPORTANT DEIFINITION:
1. The appellant for the purpose of this memorandum shall be the State.
2. The respondents for the purpose of all the issue shall be Ravi.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article
132 and 134 of the Constitution of India,1950.

Article 132 in the Constitution of India 1949

132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in

certain cases

1. An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or
final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil,
criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article
134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as t the
interpretation of this Constitution

2. Omitted

3. Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to
the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid
has been wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes of this article,
the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if
decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final
disposal of the case

8|Page
Article 134 in The Constitution Of India 1949
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.

9|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court the facts of the case
are summarized as follows:

A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.

1. That Reenu an 18 year old girl was a student of 12th class.
2. That Ramesh, a maths teacher of Reenu in her school, secretly developed
emotions for her and also Reenu admired him.
3. That on Reenu’s 18th birthday Raviorganized a birthday party for her at his
house and gifted her an expensive watch which was happily accepted by
Reenu.

B. HATE INCITED BETWEEN REENU’S PARENTS AND RAMESH.

4. That on 14th Feb, 2013 Raviproposed to Reenu for marriage and since Reenu
also admired him she asked Ravito speak to her parents regarding the same.
5. That on 20th Feb, Raviapproached her parents with the marriage proposal as
asked by Reenu. However Reenu’s parents rejected his offer and also
strongly admonished Reenu and threatened that they will discontinue her
studies.
6. However out of love Ravitried contacting Reenu believing that all her
actions were under undue influence of her parents.
7. That as a responsible man Raviagain tried to convince Reenu’s parents for
their marriage but her parents strongly revoked his proposal and also beat
him brutally and asked him to leave.

C. ACTION ABETTED BY MAHESH

8. That enraged with the feeling of dejection when Ravi went to Mahesh for
seeking advice, Mahesh insisted Ravi that he should find Reenu alone and
take her to the temple for marrying her. And also Mahesh misleaded Ravi
that incase Reenu resisted the offer due to parental pressure Mahesh would
threaten her with a bottle of acid.
9. That since Raviparents died in a road accident, Ravi always confided him
and looked upon Mahesh as his father. Ramesh, who was initially reluctant
agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Reenu and

10 | P a g e
 the bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to convince her for compliance
to their wishes.
10. That on 23rd March 2013 when Raviand Mahesh saw Reenu passing on a
lonely road, they approached Reenu to accompany them to the temple so that
they can get married. On Reenu’s refusal, Mahesh carrying the bottle of acid
threatened Reenu.
11.That when chaos was created, Mahesh accidentally spilled acid on Reenu.
12.That the Session Court convicted Raviunder Section 326 A r/w Section 34 of
IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. He was
also asked to pay compensation to Reenu to the sum of Rs. 200000/- to be
paid immediately. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
under section 345D, IPC, 1860. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

D. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT

13. That since Raviwas aggrieved by the decision of the District Court, he filed
an appeal to the High Court.
14.That the High Court acquitted Raviand since the State was aggrieved by the
Decision of the High Court, it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

11 | P a g e
 ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER RAVIHAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION

326A R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

ISSUE II

WHETHER RAVIHAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION

354D OF IPC?

ISSUE III

WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION BETWEEN

ACCUSED RAVIAND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF IPC,
1860 ?

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING PERMISSION

FOR ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC?

12 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADING

ISSUE I: WHETHER RAVIHAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER

SECTION 326A R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant The
Respondent is clearly liable under Section 326A of the IPC, 1860 for causing
grievous hurt to the victim, as he was a party to the criminal act. Section 34 of the
IPC, 1860 clearly states that if a criminal act is done by several persons with a
common intention, each person is liable for that act as if he had done it alone. In
this case, there was a clear common intention between the Respondent and Mahesh
to force the victim to marry the Respondent against her will, and the Respondent
was fully aware of Mahesh's plan to threaten the As the applicant in this case,

ISSUE II: WHETHER RAVIHAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER

SECTION 354D OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that The order passed by
the High Court acquitting the Respondent is not valid, as it fails to take into
account the clear evidence of his involvement in the crime. The High Court's
decision to acquit the Respondent appears to be based on a technicality, i.e. the
lack of direct evidence linking him to the actual act of throwing acid on the victim,
rather than on the basis of the clear circumstantial evidence of his involvement in
the crime.
The High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent also fails to take into account
the fact that he had a clear common intention with Mahesh to force the victim to
marry him against her will, which makes him equally culpable for the crime. The
State's decision to file an appeal against the High Court's decision to acquit the
Respondent is fully justified, as it is important to ensure that justice is done and
that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes are brought to book.

13 | P a g e
ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE EXIST COMMON INTENTION
BETWEEN RAVIAND MAHESH AS PER THE SECTION 34 OF IPC,
1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that There is clear
evidence of common intention between the Respondent and Mahesh to force the
victim to marry the Respondent against her will, and to use the threat of acid to
achieve this end. 2. The fact that Mahesh carried a bottle of acid and threatened the
victim with it clearly shows that both he and the Respondent had a common
intention to use violence and coercion to achieve their goal. The issue at hand is
whether there exists common intention between the Respondent and Mahesh as per
Section 34 of IPC, 1860. The Applicant argues that there is a clear demonstration
of common intention between the Respondent and Mahesh to commit the crime of
throwing acid on the victim.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE STATE IS JUSTIFIED FOR SEEKING

PERMISSION FOR ADDITION OF CHARGE U/S 366 OF IPC.

The Respondent is also clearly liable under Section 354 of the IPC, 1860 for using
criminal force to outrage the modesty of the victim, as he repeatedly contacted her
against her will and made unwanted sexual advances towards her. 2. The
Respondent is also liable under Section 366 of the IPC, 1860 for kidnapping the
victim, as he and Mahesh forcibly took her away without her consent and against
her will. Overall, I would argue that the evidence clearly shows the Respondent's
culpability in the crime and that the High Court's decision to acquit him is not
valid. It is important to ensure that justice is done and that the victim gets the
compensation and support she deserves. Based on the facts presented, it appears
that the Respondent is liable under Section 354 and Section 366 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).

14 | P a g e
 PLEADING

I. WHETHER RAVIHAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER

SECTION 326 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

The Respondent is clearly liable under Section 326A of the IPC, 1860 for causing
grievous hurt to the victim, as he was a party to the criminal act. Section 34 of the
IPC, 1860 clearly states that if a criminal act is done by several persons with a
common intention, each person is liable for that act as if he had done it alone. In
this case, there was a clear common intention between the Respondent and Mahesh
to force the victim to marry the Respondent against her will, and the Respondent
was fully aware of Mahesh's plan to threaten the victim with acid.

The fact that the Respondent gifted the victim an expensive watch and proposed to
her for marriage on her 18th birthday, despite being fully aware that she was a
minor and belonged to a lower economic class shows that he had an ulterior
motive.

Even after the victim's parents rejected his proposal and warned him to stay away
from their daughter, the Respondent kept contacting her through various means,
which shows that he was intent on marrying her against her will.

The case of State of Haryana v. Bhupinder Singh 1 is relevant in this regard. In that
case, the accused had thrown acid on a girl's face, causing her grievous hurt. The
accused was convicted under Section 326A and Section 34 of IPC, and the court
held that the act of throwing acid was a premeditated one and could not have been
carried out without the active participation of both the accused. The court further
held that the accused had acted in furtherance of a common intention to cause harm
to the victim. Similarly, in the present case, Ravi and Mahesh acted in concert to
cause harm to the victim, and thus, Ravi should be held liable under Section 326A
and Section 34 of IPC, 1860

Furthermore in Shalu Ojha v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Allahabad High Court
held that the use of acid is a heinous crime and a violation of human rights. The
1
Haryana v. Bhupinder Singh
2
Shalu Ojha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

15 | P a g e
court also held that the accused can be convicted under Section 326A of the IPC,
1860, even if they did not have the intention to cause harm.

16 | P a g e
II. WHETHER RAVI HAD COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 354D OF IPC?
The actions of the respondent, Ravi, in this case are a clear violation of the victim's
rights and are punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Ravi, along with his
accomplice Mahesh, forcibly took the victim, Reetu, to a temple and threatened her
with acid to force her to marry Ravi against her will. This is a heinous crime and is
a violation of Reetu's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.

The Session Court convicted Ravi under Section 326 A and Section 34 IPC, 1860,
and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also ordered
Ravi to pay compensation of Rs. 200,000 to Reetu immediately and sentenced him
to further imprisonment for two years under Section 345 D, IPC, 1860. Both
sentences were to run concurrently. However, the High Court acquitted Ravi of the
charges, which is a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court's decision to acquit Ravi is not based on the merits of the case, but
rather on technicalities and procedural issues. The High Court's decision is not
valid because it fails to consider the gravity of Ravi's actions and the harm caused
to the victim.

In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3. The Supreme Court held that the
High Court has the power to interfere with a conviction only when there is a clear
error of law or when the decision is based on no evidence. In this case, the
conviction of Ravi by the Session Court was based on sufficient evidence and there
was no clear error of law in the proceedings. Therefore, the High Court should not
have acquitted Ravi.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh 4 held that the
High Court should not interfere with a conviction merely on the ground that the
evidence on record could be interpreted differently. The High Court in this case
has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has interpreted it in a manner
that is not in accordance with the law.

3
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992),
4
Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004)

17 | P a g e
III. WHETHER THESE EXIST COMMON INTENTION
BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND MAHESH AS PER THE
SECTION 34 OF IPC, 1860?

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 were done by him alone5.

In the present case, there is ample evidence to suggest that the Respondent and
Mahesh acted in furtherance of a common intention to throw acid on the victim.
The Respondent gifted an expensive watch to the victim and proposed to her for
marriage, which was rejected by the victim's parents.

Despite being warned not to contact her, the Respondent kept in touch with the
victim through phone and internet. Mahesh suggested to the Respondent that he
should find the victim alone and take her to the temple for marrying her without
informing her parents. Furthermore, Mahesh threatened the victim with a bottle of
acid to coerce her to come with them to the temple.

On the day of the incident, both the Respondent and Mahesh approached the
victim and forced her into the car. Mahesh then opened the bottle of acid and threw
it on the victim's face, causing her immense pain.

The Applicant relies on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kishan Lal 6, where the
Supreme Court held that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances
of the case. In the present case, the circumstances clearly indicate a pre-planned
and coordinated effort between the Respondent and Mahesh to commit the crime
of throwing acid on the victim. Therefore, the Respondent cannot be absolved of
his liability for the crime committed by Mahesh under Section 34 of IPC, 1860.
The evidence presented in the case strongly supports the existence of common
intention between the Respondent and Mahesh in committing the crime. The
Applicant urges the Court to uphold the conviction of the Respondent under
Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and ensure that justice is served for the victim.

5
Section 34 Of IPC, 1860
6
State of Rajasthan v. Kishan Lal (2010) 3 SCC 427

18 | P a g e
IV. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 354D
AND SECTION 366 OF IPC?

Under Section 354 of the IPC, the act of the Respondent gifting the victim an
expensive watch and later proposing marriage to her can be considered as an act of
outraging the modesty of a woman. The victim had clearly expressed her rejection
of his advances, and yet he continued to contact her through phone and internet,
which further constitutes an offense under this section.

Similarly, under Section 366 of the IPC, the act of the Respondent and Mahesh
abducting the victim and forcefully taking her to the temple against her will with
the threat of acid attack can be considered as kidnapping. The victim was coerced
and threatened with physical harm, and her consent was not obtained for the same.
This act also amount to an offense under this section.

The fact that the Respondent and Mahesh had used acid to harm the victim further
adds to their criminal liability. Section 326A of the IPC deals with acid attacks,
and the Respondent can be held liable for causing grievous hurt to the victim with
the use of acid.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh7, the Supreme Court has held that
the act of kidnapping a woman, with the intent to compel her to marry, constitutes
an offense under Section 366 of the IPC.

Additionally, in the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Master 8, the Supreme Court
has held that the act of giving a gift to a woman with the intent of seducing her
amounts to an offense under Section 354 of the IPC.

Therefore, based on the above analysis and the facts presented, it is clear that the
Respondent is liable under Section 354 and Section 366 of the IPC. The conviction
and sentencing imposed by the Session Court was justified and the decision of the
High Court to acquit the Respondent was incorrect. The Supreme Court should
uphold the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Session Court.

7
Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
8
State of U.P. v. Krishna Master

19 | P a g e
 PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BE
PLEASED:

1. To declare that Mr. Ravi is guilty of the crime of causing grievous hurt by
use of acid and stalking.

2. To declare Mr. Ravi is guilty of the crime under Section 366, IPC.

3. To declare that the High Court’s convict order of Mr. Ravi should be
reserved.

AND/OR

4. PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

20 | P a g e