MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

SHRI SHIVAJI MARATHA SOCIETY’S

LAW COLLEGE, PUNE.

425, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411002

MOOT COURT PROBLEM - 1

NAME :- SWARAJ MILIND DOSHI

CLASSS :- LLB - III , SEM :- VI , Roll No :- 29
ACADEMIC YEAR :- 2023-2024
Faculty Professor :- K Soumya Ma’am

Page 1 of 17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIYANA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO:- 927 /2002

IN THE MATTER OF:

INDIYANA N.G.O ............................................................................. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF GUJRANA ……………………………………………………. Respondent

UPON SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY COUNCILS

APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 2 of 17
 Table of Contents
1. LIST OF ABBRIVATION ..............................................................................

2. BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPY..............................................................

I. Cases …………………………………………………

II. Legislation …………………………………………..

III. Books ……………………………………………….

IV. Web Sources Referred ………………………………

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………………

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS. ……………………………………………………………..

5. ISSUE RAISED ……………………………………………………………………...…

6. SUMMERY OF ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………

7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………………………………………………

I. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana?

II. Whether the the decision of the Gujrana Government is legal and correct in view of
law?

III. Whether the decision given by Gujrana Government violates the spirit and of the
provision of Sect.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ?

8. PRAYER …………………………….……………………………………………

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 3 of 19

 LIST OF ABBRIVATION

Art Article

Cri Criminal

Vs Verses

Crpc Code of criminal procedure

Ss Subsection

u/s Under Section

IPC Indian Penal Code

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

A.I.R All India Reporter

Sec. Section

Ors. Others

Hon’ble Honorable.

High Court
HC

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 4 of 19

 BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPY

I. Constitution Of India.

II. Statutes:
1. The Prisons Act,1894

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

III. Books:
1. Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Seventh Edition, KD Gaur.

2. Textbook on The Law of Evidence, Twenty Third Edition, Dr. Surendra S Shrivastava.

3. Text book on Criminal Producer Code 5th edition R.V. Kelkars

4. Text book on Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain

5. Text book on Indian Polity By M Laxmikant

IV. Essays, Articles, Journals and Web Sources Referred:

1. Live law – Basic Principle of Law.
2. https://www.studocu.com
3. https://www.lawctopus.com
4. http://indiankanoon.org
5. www.manupatra.com

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 5 of 19

 Judicial Decisions Referred

Sr. No. CASE NAME WITH CITATION

1 Union Of India vs V. Sriharan @ ,Murugan & Ors

2 State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346,

Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC

4
734

5 State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (2012) 4 SCC 786,

6 Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204.

7 Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277.

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 6 of 19

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant herein has evoked

Article 32 in Constitution of India

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses
(1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under
clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

Thus it must be noted that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right
that guarantees the right to constitutional remedies. It is considered one of the most
crucial provisions in the Constitution as it empowers individuals to seek protection and
enforcement of their fundamental rights directly from the Supreme Court of India.The
Supreme Court can issue five types of writs under Article 32.

Article 226 in Constitution of India

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 7 of 19

jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or
stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition
under clause (1), without—

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,

makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a
copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of
two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of
such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on
the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the
High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall,
on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand
vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

Power of High Courts to issue certain writs, orders, or directions to any person,
authority, or government for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose Jurisdiction of High Courts under
Article 226 is wide and discretionary, allowing them to intervene in matters of public
interest, individual rights, and government actions.

It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Judicature of Supreme
Court of Indiyana Writ Petition No. 927 of 2002 titled Indrayani N.G.O. vs. State of
Gujarana. Thus It is pertinent to note that this honorable court has territorial
jurisdiction over the matter at hand.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that this honorable court possesses
the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues raised in the present matter and to
grant appropriate relief as may be deemed just and equitable under the circumstances
Hence, this appeal.

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 8 of 19

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Representing the respondent in the aforementioned case, learned council

respectfully submit this facts of the present case summarized as follows for the
elucidation of this honorable Supreme Court:

Background:-
Indiyana is a democratic republic country with 29 states having separation of powers.
State of Gujrana is one of the state among them. State of Gujrana have a place name
Gaya. In Gaya there were incident of Sabarmati Express Train burning which is followed
by riots in state of Gujrana. In this unfortunately riots on dated 03-03-2002, convicts
were found guilty of heinous crimes such as gang rape , murder of family members of
victim including minors. Over 1000 people were repotedly killed in the Gujarana riot.

Crime scene:-
There were large scale riots in state of Gujrana on 03-03-2002. The predators committed
heinous crimes like gang rape and murder of family members of petitioner. Accused
committed gang rape on petitioner also. At the time of the occurrence Sharifa Bano was
accompanied by 16 family members including her daughter Saniya who was three-year-
old. On 3rd March 2002 the family was attacked by a group of 20-30 persons armed with
stickles, swords and sticks in “Rampur” village near “Adilabad” .The murder of seven
family members and the disappearance of six others during the violent incident. Only
Sharifa Bano and 2-year-old child survived the brutal attack. Sharifa Bano walked
almost naked from the scene of the crime to register the case to local Police Station
Limbgaon. FIR was registered but the fact that she was raped not stated, accused not
named despite her identifying 12 of them.
Trial of the case:-
Following death threats against Sharifa Bano the trial moved from Gujrana to
Mahadesham. Charge sheet was filed against 20 people including 6 Police Officers and 2
Govt. Doctors. Although place of offence is State of Gujrana but for safety of witnesses

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 9 of 19

and for fair trial it is transferred from State of Gujrana to State of Mahadesham. The said
trial was concluded by life imprisonment in Rajkot Jail in Gujrana to said accused for
committing heinous crime. Aftermath the appeal preferred by state of Mahadesham. and
accused rejected by honourable High court of Mumbra and confirmed their conviction.
The said appeal then travelled to Indiyana Apex court and Apex court conferred decision
of High courts. Trial went on for 6 years by the Special Court of CBI Mumbra. In 2008
SpecialCourt of C.B.I. Mumbra convicted 11 accused to Life Imprisonment for gang
rape and murder of seven members of Sharifa Bano family including a Head Constable
for making incorrect records to save the accused

Decision of the case:-

Both Honourable High court of state of Mumbra. and honourable Apex court of Indiyana
conferred life imprisonment of accused in Rajkot Jail in Gujrana. Mumbra convicted 11
accused to Life Imprisonment for gang rape and murder of seven members of Sharifa
Bano family including a Head Constable for making incorrect records to save the
accused

Application for Remission:-

Mahesh Vora and others filed an application to the State Govt. of Gujrana for
the remission of the sentence as per the provisions of law. The said application was
allowed by the Gujarana Government. The Indrayani N.G.O filed Writ petition in the
hon’ble Supreme court of Indiyan

Remission order:-
State of Gujrana granted remission by order bearing No 2522/2002 dated 20-03-2002 to
all convicts and released them on the grounds that they are improved and offence was
committed in territory of Gujrana. Petitioner i.e Indrayani N.G.O.filed writ petition
before apex court that is Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana assailing order dated
29.02.2022 against order of state of Gujrana which permitted pre mature release of the
accused.

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 10 of 19

 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indiyana?

ISSUE 2

Whether the the decision of the Gujrana Government is legal and correct in view of
law?

ISSUE 3

Whether the decision given by Gujrana Government violates the spirit and of the
provision of S..432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ?

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 11 of 19

 SUMMERY OF ARGUMENT’S

ISSUE 1

1) Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Indiyana?

It is submitted that answer to the above question is in the Negative, it is not

maintainable. As filed under the article 32 is mainly for remedy against violation of
fundamental rights. It is not remedy against remission order which is passed by Gujrana
government.

ISSUE 2

Whether the the decision of the Gujrana Government is legal and correct in
view of law?

It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal Yes.
The decision of the Gujrana Government is deemed legal and correct in view of the law.
Upon thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence, it is
evident that the decision was made within the framework of the law, following due
process and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

ISSUE 3

Whether the decision given by Gujrana Government violates the spirit and of
the provision of Sect.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ?

It is submitted that answer to the above question is in the Negative, it is does not in any
manner violates the spirit and of the provision of Sect.432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 rather it safeguards the position of victim in the above case

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 12 of 19

 ARGUMENT ADVANCE

ISSUE 1

1) Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Indiyana?

- It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is in Negative. The
petition filed by one of the victims in writ petition is not maintainable.
- As filed under the article 32 is mainly for remedy against violation of fundamental
rights. It is not remedy against remission order which is passed by state govt.
- The maintainability of a writ petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana
depends on various factors, including the jurisdiction of the court, the nature of the
case, and the legal grounds invoked. In this scenario, the Indrayani N.G.O. has filed a
writ petition challenging the decision of the Gujrana Government regarding the
remission of sentences. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana typically entertains
writ petitions related to violations of fundamental rights or matters of significant
public interest.
- The courts interference with investigation the reference to the case of Union of India
v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. - 2014(11) SCC 1 have established the
parameters for the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 32 and Article 226.
- As Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to move the Supreme
Court for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution.
- Article 226 confers similar powers upon the High Courts to issue writs for the
enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.
- Article 32 of the Indiyana Constitution grants individuals the right to move the
Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, it's essential to
note that Article 32 primarily deals with violations of fundamental rights and not
criminal matters. In the present case, if the convicts are challenging their criminal
convictions and sentences, they might not be directly related to violations of

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 13 of 19

 fundamental rights. Therefore, the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article
32 can be questioned.
- In the present case the victim was having the right to first approach the state court,
instead the victim directly approach the SC which will increase the burden on the SC.
So the petition filed by petitioner must be dismissed reserving liberty to approach the
High Court under Article 226. If this writ petition is maintainable here then every
victim may approache Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiyana under Article 32 which
will lower down the prestige of the High Court and affect the judicial capacity of
High Court. This will result in challenging comperencny of the High Court for serving
justice for democratic nation. Courts may also refuse to entertain a writ petition if
alternative remedies are available to the petitioner or if the petition is frivolous,
vexatious, or lacking in merit.
- Also Article 226 of the Indian Constitution bestows extraordinary jurisdiction upon
the High Courts of each state and union territory. It empowers these courts to issue
writs, orders, and directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any
other purpose deemed necessary to uphold justice. It serves as a powerful tool for the
judiciary to check and balance the actions of the executive and ensure that the rights
of citizens are protected at all times.
- Hence, Under Article 226, the High Courts possess the authority to issue writs such as
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. These writs
enable the court to intervene in matters where an individual's fundamental rights are at
stake or when there is a need to correct a legal error or an abuse of power by a public
authority. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is vast and extends to
both civil and criminal matters, making them an essential pillar of the legal system.
- In the present case, the petitioner seeks relief pertaining to the enforcement of
fundamental rights or legal rights, which falls within the jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Article 226. Therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article
226. However, it is important to note that Article 32 is not an alternative remedy to the
jurisdiction conferred under Article 226. Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself, but

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 14 of 19

 it should not be invoked when the appropriate forum for relief is the High Court under
Article 226.
- My lordship therefore, while the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226, it is
not maintainable under Article 32.

ISSUE 2

2) Whether the the decision of the Gujrana Government is legal and correct in view of law?

- It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is an unequivocal Yes.
- The decision of the Gujrana Government is deemed legal and correct in view of the
law. Upon thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence, it
is evident that the decision was made within the framework of the law, following due
process and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
- The government's decision reflects a careful consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the applicable legal standards. Consequently, it
can be concluded that the decision of the Gujrana Government is both legally sound
and justified.
- In the State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346, the Supreme Court of
India emphasized the principle of legality in governmental actions. The court held that
governmental decisions must have a valid legal basis and must not be arbitrary or
capricious. It reiterated that government actions must be in accordance with the law
and cannot violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights.
- Thus State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012) 3 SCC 346 case is applicable to above
Issue as it underscores the importance of legality and correctness in governmental
decisions. In evaluating the decision of the Gujrana Government, it is crucial to
ensure that the decision is legally sound and does not violate any constitutional
provisions or fundamental rights.
- The principles laid down in this case provide valuable guidance on assessing the
legality and correctness of governmental actions, making it a relevant authority in the
present matter.

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 15 of 19

 ISSUE 3

Whether the decision given by Gujrana Government violates the spirit and of
the provision of u/s 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 ?

- It is most humbly submitted that the answer to above question is in Negative.

- The decision given by the Gujrana Government does not violate the spirit and
provisions of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- My Lordship upon careful analysis of the decision and the relevant legal framework,
it is evident that the Gujrana government's action is in accordance and consistent with
the provisions of Section 432 and the underlying principles of criminal justice.
- The decision to suspend or remit sentences is discretionary and must be exercised
judiciously by the appropriate authorities. In this case, there is no indication of
arbitrariness or violation of procedural fairness in the government's decision-making
process.
- Therefore, it can be concluded that the decision of the Gujrana Government aligns
with the spirit and intent of Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- In the Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 734, the
Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and
reasonableness in governmental decisions regarding the suspension or remission of
sentences. The court held that decisions made under Section 432 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be based on relevant considerations and must not be
arbitrary or discriminatory. It reiterated that the exercise of executive discretion must
be guided by principles of justice, fairness, and public interest.
- The Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 734 is highly
relevant as it underscores the need for governmental decisions under Section 432 to
adhere to principles of fairness and reasonableness. In evaluating whether the decision
of the Gujrana Government violates the spirit and provisions of Section 432, it is
crucial to ensure that the decision is based on relevant considerations and does not
amount to arbitrariness or discrimination. The principles laid down in this case

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 16 of 19

 provide valuable guidance on assessing the legality and correctness of governmental
actions under Section 432, making it a relevant authority in the present matter
- In the State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (2012) 4 SCC 786, the Supreme
Court of India reiterated the principles governing the exercise of executive discretion
under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court emphasized
that decisions regarding the suspension or remission of sentences must be made in
accordance with the principles of justice, fairness, and public interest. It held that the
exercise of executive discretion must not be arbitrary or discriminatory and must be
based on relevant considerations.
- My Lord the State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil (2012) 4 SCC 786 case is
highly applicable to above issue as it pertains to the exercise of executive discretion
under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In evaluating whether the
decision of the Gujrana Government violates the spirit and provisions of Section 432,
it is essential to ensure that the decision is in accordance with the principles laid down
in this case. The principles emphasized by the court provide valuable guidance on
assessing the legality and correctness of governmental actions under Section 432,
making it a pertinent authority in the present matter.
- Also in the case law of Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204. the
Supreme Court emphasized that decisions regarding the exercise of executive
discretion under Section 432 must not be influenced by improper motives or
extraneous considerations. The court held that such decisions must be guided by
principles of justice, fairness, and public interest. Applying the principles laid down in
Kehar Singh, it is evident that the decision of the Gujrana Government meets these
criteria and is therefore in compliance with Section 432.
- Also determination in the case law of Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277.
In this landmark case, finds ample reinforcement. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the
principles of natural justice and fairness in matters involving the deprivation of life
and liberty. The court held that decisions regarding the suspension or remission of
sentences must be made in accordance with established legal procedures and must not
violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The decision of the

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 17 of 19

 Gujrana Government reflects adherence to these principles, as it was made with due
regard to the rights and interests of the individuals affected.
- The decision undertaken by the Gujrana Government was meticulously deliberated
and based on relevant considerations, adhering to established legal protocols. There
exists no indication to suggest that the decision was swayed by any kind of extraneous
motives or arbitrary factors. On the contrary, it is apparent that the decision was
guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and public interest, which align with the
requisites delineated under Section 432.
- In conclusion, the referenced case laws, including Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 734 , State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil
(2012) 4 SCC 786, Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204. and Mithu v.
State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277 highlight the paramount importance of fairness,
reasonableness, and adherence to legal principles in governmental decisions,
particularly those concerning the suspension or remission of sentences under Section
432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 18 of 19

 PRAYER

In the light of the above statements, facts presented, issues raised, authorities relied upon
and arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed that:

1. That the Writ Petition may kindly be rejected and made non - maintainable.
2. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review and scrutinize the decision made
by the Gujrana Government regarding the remission of sentences, and determine its
legality and correctness in accordance with the provisions of law, principles of
justice, and constitutional guarantees.
3. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the order of remmission given by
the State of Gujrana to be invalid.

AND

To pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may been fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good conscience, for which this appellant shall be duty bound forever pray.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Sd/- .

(Humbly submitted by the counsel

appearing on behalf of the Respondent)

Place :- New Delhi

Date: __/__/____

Written submission on behalf of Respondent Page 19 of 19