Moot cour-2024-2025

V R KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN LAW COLLEGE, NEMMARA

9th SEMESTER CLASS MOOT COURT, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

SUMATHI MISTRA ……………………PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF DELHI …………………RESPONDENT

BY,

NIRANJANA.K.S
SOUNDARYA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 1

 Moot cour-2024-2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 STATEMENT OF 7
JURISDICTION
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 8

5 ISSUES RAISED 9

6 SUMMARY OF FACTS 10

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

8 PRAYER 19

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 2

 Moot cour-2024-2025

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

JJ ACT JUVENNILE JUSTICE BOARD

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 3

 Moot cour-2024-2025

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 CASE REFERRED :

1. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu And Anr 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
593
2. Thirumoorthy vs State 2024 INSC
3. Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State By Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr on 15
March, 2012
4. Pritam Singh v. The State’,
5. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai’.
6. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar
7. State ofPunjab v. Jugraj
8. Mathai joby v. George & Anr.
9. Shilpa Mittal Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi
10. A.C. v. State (NCT of Delhi),
11. Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar,
12. Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar.
13. Md.Ali Guddu v. State Of U.P.
14. Thakkur Ram v. State of Bihar,
15. State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Singh
16. Dr. Subramanian Swamy And Ors v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice
17. A.C. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8104, Vipin Kumar
Mallah v. State of Bihar,
18. Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar,

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 4

 Moot cour-2024-2025

BOOKS :

❖ J N Pandey, The Constitutional Law,60th Edition ,2023

❖ 2. V.N. Shukla’s ,Constitution of india ,Thirteenth edition
❖ 3. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ,2023 ,(46 of 2023)
❖ 4. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 ,(45 of 2023)
❖ 5. The Indian Penal Code ,1860,(45 of 1860)The Jammu And Kashmir
Reorganisation
❖ Act ,2019 (34 of 2019)
❖ 6. The Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973,(2 of 1974)The Jammu And Kashmir
❖ Reorganisation Act,2019 (34 of 2019)

STATUTES :

 Constitution Of India.
 IPC
 BNS
 JJ ACT

 WEBSITES:

• WWW. INDIAN LAW. COM

• WWW. LAWTEACHERS.COM
• WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM
• HTTPS://LAWBHOOMI.COM/
• AIRONLINE | INDIAN LEGAL DATABASE | LEGAL
RESEARCH
• WWW.BAR AND BENCH.COM

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 5

 Moot cour-2024-2025

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hear the instant
appeals by virtue of: Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1949 - Special leave to appeal
by the Supreme Court 136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court
may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed Forces. RESPONDENTS HUMBLY SUBMIT
THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON'BLE COURT.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 6

 Moot cour-2024-2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 4, 2023, a 17-year-old juvenile, just 361 days shy of turning 18, was driving his
father’s Mercedes Benz at a speed of approximately 80 km/h when he hit and killed 32-year-
old marketing professional Siddharth Sharma. The accident was a motor vehicle fatality and
fell under the ambit of heinous offences as defined under Section 105 of the BNS.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ruled that since the juvenile was above 16 years of age at the
time of the offence and had committed a heinous crime, he should be tried as an adult. The
mother of the accused contested this decision, seeking to have him tried as a child under the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Hon’ble High Court upheld the JJB's decision, affirming that the juvenile should face trial
as an adult given the nature of the offence. Subsequently, the juvenile’s mother approached the
Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court's ruling.

This case highlights the evolving judicial interpretation of juvenile justice laws, especially in
cases involving heinous crimes committed by juveniles aged 16 to 18.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 7

 Moot cour-2024-2025

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUES 1
1 WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS
MAINTAIBLE OR NOT

ISSUES 2
2 WHETHER THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT

ISSUES 3
3. WHETHER THE ACT OF JUVENILE ACCUSED CONSTITUTES MURDER OR
CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

1.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 8

 Moot cour-2024-2025

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ISSUE 1

It is most humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appeal petition does
not pass the test of admissibility under the invoked Article of Constitution and the
grounds put forth by the petitioners are not credible. The power under Article 136 has
to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances only. In the present case at
hand, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a
legal right. She has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the
impugned order does not operate as a decision against her, much less does it
wrongfully affect his title to something. She has not been subjected to a legal wrong
alsohasn’t suffered any legal grievance. She has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to
hang on. Therefore she is not a ‘person aggrieved’ and has no locus standi to challenge
the grant of the No-objection Certificate.

Issue 2

It is most humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the procedures laid
down by law were duly followed. The preliminary assessment by the juvenile justice
board was carried out as per the procedures. The guilt of moriarty was proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the special court keeping in mind all the circumstantial evidence
which formed a complete chain. It is contented that the juvenile was charged with
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a maximum punishment of
10 years imprisonment? Given the seriousness of the offense and the fact that the
juvenile was only 361 days shy of turning 18,the JJB’s decision to try him as an adult
was reasonable. The respondent, had the right to life, which was violated by the
juvenile’s reckless and negligent actions. The state has a responsibility to protect its
citizens’ right to life, and in this case, trying the juvenile as an adult ensures that justice
is served and the severity of the offense is acknowledged.

Issue 3 :
The argument commenced with the consideration of a juvenile's act of rash driving,
resulting in the victim's death, being deemed fit to be tried as an adult. The Juvenile
Justice Board (JJB) assessed that the accused possessed the mental and physical capacity
to understand the consequences of their actions. The accused faced charges under
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 9

 Moot cour-2024-2025

murder. The Supreme Court's determination of whether the offense constituted a

"heinous offense" under Section 2(33) of the Act hung in the balance, carrying
significant implications for the juvenile's punishment.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 10

 Moot cour-2024-2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IS
MAINTAIBLE OR NOT The respondent most humbly submits that in the present case the
appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble SC under Art 136 of the Const of Indian.
Before considering the merits of the appeal, it is important to check the admissibility under Art
136. The counsel most humbly contends that the same petition doesn’t pass the test of
admissibility under the invoked Art of the Const and also the grounds put forth by the appellant
are not credible. In the matter of Pritam Singh v. The State’,1 the Hon’ble SC has laid down that
the power has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The power is permitted to
be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of
law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the SC
shocks the conscience. This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the SC to be
exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the SC in exceptional cases
only when special circumstances are shown to exist as in the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v.
Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai’.2 The power has to be exercised with great care and due
consideration while exercising the power. The order should be passed taking into consideration
all binding precedents otherwise such an order would create problems in the future.3 The
concept of exceptional circumstances has been explained in the landmark judgement of Ganga
Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar.4 The powers of this Court under Art 136 of the Constitution
are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of
fact save in exceptional circumstances as given stated in Md.Ali Guddu v. State Of U.P.5

1.1That the appellant has no locus standi to initiate a legal action in the
instant case

It is most humbly submitted that the appellant did not file any PIL, which means that she did
not have public interest in mind while appealing in the SC. The petition was filed in personal
capacity, which makes her stranger to the affected parties. She has no direct interest in such
investigation nor suffers any special loss.In the matter of Pritam Singh v. The State 6, it was
stated that the Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special
circumstances exist, that substantial

1. A.I.R. 1950 S.C

2 A. I.R. 2004 S.C. 1815)
3 D.D. Basu, Commentary on Indian Constitutional Law)
4 AIR SCW 3617, 2005

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 11

 Moot cour-2024-2025

5 SLP (Crl.) No. 9896 of 2011

6 Ibid 1

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 12

 Moot cour-2024-2025

and grave injustice has been done and the case in question presents features of sufficient
gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.”
A private party has no locus standi., barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters, the
aggrieved party is the State, which is the custodian of the social interests of the community
at large, and so it is necessary for the State to take all steps necessary for bringing the person
who has acted against the social interests of the community, to book.7
It is further submitted that in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar8
the SC has
held that in order to have the locus standi to invoke certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner
should be an “aggrieved person” and in a case of defect of jurisdiction, such a petitioner will
be entitled to a writ of certiorari as a matter of course, but if he does not fulfill that character,
and is a “stranger”, the Court will, in its discretion, deny him this extraordinary remedy, save
in very special circumstances. The expression“aggrieved person” denotes an elastic, and, to
an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and
comprehensive definition.
In the present case at hand, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied
or deprived of a legal right. She has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In
fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against her, much less does it
wrongfully affect his title to something. She has not been subjected to a legal wrong also
hasn’t suffered any legal grievance. She has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on.
Therefore she is not a ‘person aggrieved’ and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of
the No-objection Certificate.

1.2 whether there has been gross injustice or not

It is most respectfully submitted that the SC normally refrains from appreciating the matter
unless there is some serious infirmity or grave failure of justice as in the matter of State of
Punjab v. Jugraj 9
“Jurisdiction under Art 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is
exercisable only in the exceptional cases when the Supreme Court is satisfied that it should
interfere prevent the grave and serious miscarriage of the justice, as distinguished from mere
error in the appreciation of evidence.”

7 Crl. No. 166 of 1962,

8 AIR 1976 SC 578
9 A.I.R. 2003) 3 S.C.C. 234.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 13

 Moot cour-2024-2025

It is further submitted that Mr. Venugopal has suggested the following categories of cases which
alone should be entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution:

i. All matters involving substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India;

ii. All matters of national or public importance;

iii. Validity of laws, Central and State;

iv. After Kesavananda Bharati, the judicial review of Constitutional Amendments; and

v. To settle differences of opinion of important issues of law between High Courts 10

Thus, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist that substantial
and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question features of gravity
warranting review of the decision appealed against, such exercise should not be done.
Hence, the present appeal is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

10 Mathai joby v. George & Anr. A.I.R. 2010 4 S.C.C. 358

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 14

 Moot cour-2024-2025

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED OR

NOT

2.1. WAS THE PRELIMINARY ASSESMENT JUSTIFIED.

JJ(Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015, section The JJB can now refer a juvenile
to a children’s court after a preliminary assessment. The children’s court, which is a
sessions court, can then determine whether to subject him to the adult judicial system. In
case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed
or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment
with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 18.B

It is contented that the juvenile was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, which carries a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment? Given the
seriousness of the offense and the fact that the juvenile was only 361 days shy of turning
18, the JJB’s decision to try him as an adult was reasonable. The respondent,had the right
to life, which was violated by the juvenile’s reckless and negligent actions. The state has
a responsibility to protect its citizens’ right to life, and in this case, trying the juvenile as
an adult ensures that justice is served and the severity of the offense is acknowledged.

It is further submitted that according to Shilpa Mittal Vs State Of NCT Od Delhi11, it

was held that, an offence which does not provide a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot
be treated to be an heinous offence.However, in view of the above authorities, the Act
does not deal with the 4* category of offences viz., offence where the maximum
sentence is more than 7 years imprisonment, but no minimum sentence or minimum
sentence of less than 7 years is provided, shall be treated as ‘serious offences’ within the
meaning of the Act and dealt with accordingly till the Parliament takes the call on the
matter.” On applying this rule to the pertinent case, the crime committed by Moriarty is
heinous.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 15

 Moot cour-2024-2025

It Is further submitted that in the sec 14[5(f ii); for child above the age of sixteen years as
on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed
under section 15. Thus, the offence committed by Moriarty, in the present case, will be
considered heinous as he was sixteen when the crime was committed and the preliminary
assessment conducted is also justified.

AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 405

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 16

 Moot cour-2024-2025

2.1 WHETHER THE TRIAL OF MORIARTY IN ADULT COURT JUSTIFIED.

Section 2(33) defines “heinous offences” as those for which the minimum punishment under the
Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years
or more.

It is most respectfully contended that, In preliminary assessment, it is necessary to prove that the
minor had the mental capacity to commit the crime(sec 15(1)12from the facts (point 6) it can be
inferred that the boys had mental capacity to commit the crime. It has been established that the
offence is heinous.13

The Nirbhaya case set a precedent for trying juveniles as adults in cases involving inousoffenses.
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, also allows for the transfer of cases involving heinous offenses
by minors to Sessions court.As offence alleged to have been committed by appellant is heinous
one and he had completed age of 16 yrs on date of commission of offence, Board conducted
preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,
ability to understand consequences of offence and circumstances in which he had allegedly
committed offence and passed order that there was need for trial of said child as adult in
accordance with the provisions enumerated in S. 18(2) of Act, 2015. Thus, the crime committed
by Moriarty was heinous under section 364- 1, In the pertinent case,(prop 5)mentions that the
intention behind the crime was to threaten Lestrade and ask for ransom. Hence, the conditions
under sec 364 were fulfilled, making it a heinous crime. Hence, on applying the above stated
application ,the trial of Moriarty in the adult court is justified

12 A.C. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8104, Vipin Kumar Mallah v. State of Bihar, 2019

13 Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1697

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 17

 Moot cour-2024-2025

3.1 Whether the act of the juvenile accused constitutes murder or culpable homicide not
amounting to murder?

It clearly states that juvenile actions constituted as mens rea (guilty mind) of the juvenile
accused commits nature of the crimes as punishable under Section 105 (BNS) and Section 2(33)
of the juvenile justice act 2015 which deals with heinous offence Bachpan Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors1 .This is due to the nature of the crimes, which demonstrate
negligent or rash actions, awareness of the potential consequences of their actions, and
recklessness or indifference to the safety of others. The legislature intended to try such juveniles
as adults for heinous offenses like rape, murder, and terrorism with punishments over 7 years.2
In case of Akshay Kumar Singh V State (NCT of Delhi) it was observed that when a juvenile is
accused for any heinous offence then the court shall take into the consideration the intention and
ability of juvenile and shall be treated as an adult. If the court does not convict the accused as
adult, then as a result it would encourage teenagers to become criminals without any fear of law.
3

AIR 2018
1
Salil Bali vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 July, 2013
2

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 18

 Moot cour-2024-2025

AIR 2020
3

3.1.1 Was the juvenile's offense intentional or accidental, and does it qualify as heinous
under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

As per the circumstances it's an act amount to intentional.The Juvenile Justice Act stipulates
three criteria for convicting a juvenile who commits heinous offence, firstly is mental and
physical capacity, secondly ability to understanding the consequences of their actions, and third
is circumstances. So, from the above contentions, it is quite evident that the accused had the
knowledge of driving the car which denotes his mental and physical capacity.

The accused was also very well capable of understanding the consequences of rash driving and
also there were no any hard and fast circumstances where the accused was obligated to drive the
car. As these conditions are fulfilled, the accused should be convicted as an adult under Section
304 of the IPC and section 2(33)of jj act 2015 for causing such act intentional and be punishable
for the offense of rash driving that juvenile offender's guardian or parent may be liable for
punishment under section 199 of motor vehicle act 2019.The juvenile may face imprisonment
up to 3 years, a fine of ₹10,000, or both

in case of DELHI MERCEDES HIT-AND-RUN :

JJB accepts cop plea, juvenile could be first to be tried as adult 32-year-old business consultant
Sidharth Sharma was killed on April 4 after being hit by a speeding car being driven by the
accused juvenile in the Civil Lines area of North Delhi.Section 15 of the recently amended JJ
Act allows juvenile offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 to be "tried as an adult" in the
courts in case of heinous offences. The JJB makes a preliminary assessment, which includes
reports from the police and a clinical psychologist, after which the case is sent to the designated
children's court presided over by a Sessions Judge, which makes a second assessment and takes
a decision. The JJB in its preliminary assessment has held that the boy "had the physical and
mental capacity to understand the consequences of his actions". It has observed that
"circumstances indicated" that he was "indifferent towards the life and safety of the other users
of the road but mature enough to think of ways to escape from lawful punishment for the
offence"

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 19

 Moot cour-2024-2025

4 AIR 2016

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

 THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION.

 WHETHER THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS NOT FOLLOWED

 WHETHER THE ACT OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED CONSTITUTES MURDER ?

Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience.

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 20

 Moot cour-2024-2025

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

V.R.Krishnanezhuthachan Law College, Nemmara, Palakkad. 21