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,

JITHIN THAMPI
SREEHARI.P

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

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 Od 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 THE 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

An appeal is a request to a higher (appellate) court for that court to review and change the
decision of a lower court. (A) Because post-trial motions requesting trial courts to change
their own judgments or order new jury trials are so seldom successful, the defendant who
hopes to overturn a guilty verdict must usually appeal.(B) The defendant may challenge
the conviction itself or may appeal the trial court's sentencing decision without actually
challenging the underlying conviction.(C)

ISSUE 2

The petitioner contends that the JJB's assessment was mechanical and superficial, failing
to take into account the petitioner’s emotional immaturity, impulsive behavior, and
rehabilitative potential as a 17-year-old.

The Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes that the process must be child-friendly and ensure
fair representation for the juvenile.The JJB and the High Court failed to adequately
consider the juvenile's right to be heard and his potential for rehabilitation.

in this case the petitioner's interest in reformative justice was overshadowed by external
pressures and societal bias.

ISSUE 3

The petitioner argues that the act qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder
because it reflects reckless behavior with some awareness of risk but lacks the
premeditation or extreme recklessness required for murder.

The juvenile’s act of speeding may be classified as gross negligence but lacks the
deliberation or extreme recklessness required for culpable homicide or murder.

KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE APPEAL HIS MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT OR NOT?
An appeal is a request to a higher (appellate) court for that court to review and change the
decision of a lower court. (A) Because post-trial motions requesting trial courts to change their
own judgments or order new jury trials are so seldom successful, the defendant who hopes to
overturn a guilty verdict must usually appeal.(B) The defendant may challenge the conviction
itself or may appeal the trial court's sentencing decision without actually challenging the
underlying conviction
A. DIFFERENT FORUMS FOR FILING APPEALS BYY THE ACCUSED AGAINST THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION
The section provides three different forums for filing appeals by the accused against the order of
conviction. They are as follows:"
(1) If the trial is held by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction, an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and not to a large Bench of Judges of that
High Court."
(2) If the trial is held by the Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, or by any other
Court in which sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed, an appeal
would lie to the High Court.®
(3) If the trial is held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of
the first or second class except in cases falling under Sections 325 and 360, an appeal will lie to
the Court of Session.
here several persons have been convicted in a single trial by a Sessions Judge or by the
Additional Sessions Judge, all of them can file a joint appeal in the High Court and it is not
necessary for them to file separate appeals."
(i) 374. Appeals from convictions.
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or
on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years
2 has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may
appeal to the High Court."
Ibid. 2 EBC (2015). Supreme Court Cases Back Volume- Full Set From 1970 to 2014 and 1 Vol of 2015 Total 81
Volumes. Eastern Book Company.
AIR 2016 (2) DHC 2345.

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

30 Ibid. Hall, Jerome (1960). General Principles of Criminal Law. Lexis Law Pub. ISBN 0-672-80035-7.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325,10 ог

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section
36011 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session

(a) Disposing of appeals

While disposing of appeals from the sentences of the Sessions Court under this Section, the High
Court should specify the reasons for rejection of appeal and should not reject it summarily. This

* The Criminal Procedure code, 1973.

Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
10 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
will enable the Supreme Court to know the view of the High Court, in case the appellant moves
the Supreme Court in appeal. 12

In this case Kailash Raguvir vs State Of Gujarat, 13 Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 1985 is
preferred by accused No. 2-Kailash Raghuvir Mishra, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 1985
is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused No. 1 Jatashankar
Asharam Pande, Gitaben, wife of Jatashankar Asharam accused No. 3, and Rajkumari, wife of
Kailash Raghuvir-accused No. 4 against their conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.

In the case of State of Kamataka v. Bheemappa, 15 the High Court allowing appeal against
conviction in a murder case, acquitted all the accused persons probably influenced by the false
accusations against some others, without appreciating the trial court's reasoning for conviction.
The Supreme Court re-appreciated the evidence and set aside the acquittal and restored the
conviction of the accused,

OVERTURN A GUILTY VERDICT MUST USUALLY APPEAL AND SUBSTANTIVE

32 Hart, H.L.A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-825181-5.
Ibid. 34 Surendra Malik; Sudeep Malik (2015). Supreme Court on Criminal Procedure Code and Criminal Trial. Eastern
Book Company. ISBN 978-93-5145-223-2. 35 R.V.Kelkar's (Revised By K.N.Chandrasekharan Pillai) (2014). R.V.Kelkar's Criminal Procedure. Eastern Book

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

For computing the sentence of imprisonment for seven years for the purpose of ascertaining the
appellate forum under Section 374 (2),17 the sentence in default of payment of fine is not to be
added to the substantive sentence of imprisonment. 18

Thus where an accused was sentenced to seven years' RI with a fine and in default of payment, to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month, the appeal filed against it could not be rejected by the
Sessions Court on the ground that substantive sentence of imprisonment and default sentence of
imprisonment, both added together was more than seven years. The appeal in the case clearly lay
to the Sessions Court and not to the High Court. 20

(i) Requirement of law that the High court has to come to its own independent decision

An appeal or revision filed by the convict from jail must be forwarded by the Jail authorities by
providing legal aid to the convict.21 While dealing with reference, the High Court should
consider the proceedings in all their material aspects and arrive at an independent conclusion on
the basis of record different from that concluded by the Sessions Judge. It is the requirement of
law that the High Court has to come to its own independent decision. 23

(a) Appeal: statutory right

The Supreme Court in Akhtari Bi v. Bihar, has observed in the context of Sections 37424 and
37825 as follows:

"The Court has time and again reminded that appeal being a statutory right, the trial Court's
verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the appeal and for that purpose his trial is
deemed to be continuing despite conviction.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is incumbent upon the High Courts to find ways and means by taking steps to ensure the
disposal of criminal appeals, particularly such appeals where the accused are in jails,27 that the
matters are disposed of within the specified period not exceeding five years in any case and if the
appeal is not disposed of within the aforesaid specified period of 5 years, for no fault of the
convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and
proper by the Court, 128

The Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh v. State of Delhi held that where the accused had made a
request only for reduction of sentence, he cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of his
conviction in the appellate Court. 30

C. CIRCUMSTANCES IN FILING APPEAL: LIMITATION ACT

The Court further observed that the judgment of a Court being conclusive, if the party
(prosecution or defence) does not agree with the findings of the Court, 31 he should bring it to
the notice of the Court then and there when the facts are being considered, and if he does not
raise any objection when the facts or findings are being recorded by the Court, then the judgment
given on the basis of those facts would be conclusive and no appeal can be entertained on the
question of facts. 33

In the instant case, no objection was raised by the accused against his conviction by the Court of
Session, 34 therefore the question of justifiability of sentence could not be reconsidered by the

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

appellate Court. Hence, the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the judgment of the Court
below.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT
2. Violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
2.1. Improper Assessment of Mental and Physical Capacity
Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required
to conduct a thorough assessment of:
Mental and physical capacity of the child to commit the offense.
Ability to understand the consequences of the offense.
Circumstances in which the offense was committed.
The petitioner contends that the JJB's assessment was mechanical and superficial, failing to take
into account the petitioner’s emotional immaturity, impulsive behavior, and rehabilitative
potential as a 17-year-old.
In Amit Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Supreme Court emphasized that the
assessment under Section 15 must be comprehensive, evidence-based, and conducted in the spirit
of juvenile reform. A superficial evaluation undermines the principles of natural justice.

2.2. Disregard for Procedural Safeguards

The Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes that the process must be child-friendly and ensure fair
representation for the juvenile.The JJB and the High Court failed to adequately consider the
juvenile's right to be heard and his potential for rehabilitation.
Principle of "Best Interests of the Child":
Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that any decision regarding a child must prioritize
their best interests. However, in this case the petitioner's interest in reformative justice was
overshadowed by external pressures and societal bias.
The decision is inconsistent with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India has
ratified, emphasizing rehabilitation over punitive measures for children.

2.3. Erroneous Classification of the Offense as "Heinous"

Under the Juvenile Justice Act:
A heinous offense is defined as one punishable with a minimum sentence of 7 years or more
(Section 2(33)).However, the offense under Section 105 of the BNS Act (causing death by rash
and negligent driving) does not meet this threshold.The classification of the offense as "heinous"
lacks legal basis since the punishment for rash and negligent driving typically does not carry a
mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years.Relying on this misclassification, the JJB and High
Court erred in deciding to try the petitioner as an adult.
In Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana (2020), the court held that offenses must strictly fall within
the statutory definition of "heinous" before subjecting juveniles to adult trials.
2.4.Procedural Bias and Societal Influence
The case received significant media coverage and public outcry, which may have influenced the
objectivity of the proceedings.The petitioner was portrayed as a "reckless juvenile," undermining
the presumption of innocence.Such external pressures could have swayed the JJB and High
Court toward a punitive rather than reformative approach.
Presumption of Juvenility
The petitioner, being 361 days shy of turning 18, was still entitled to the presumption of
juvenility under the law. The reformative spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act demands that juveniles
close to adulthood be treated with caution, ensuring their rights are fully protected.Arbitrarily
trying the petitioner as an adult erodes the fundamental protections afforded to juveniles under
the Act
2.5.Violation of the Reformative Principle

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

The Juvenile Justice Act is rooted in the philosophy of rehabilitation and reform, not
retribution.The decision to try the petitioner as an adult, without exploring alternative
rehabilitative options, contradicts the legislative intent of the Act.It exposes the petitioner to the
adult criminal justice system, which could stigmatize and irreparably harm his psychological
development.
In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2014), the Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of
juvenile laws is to ensure reform, focusing on the juvenile's potential for reintegration into
society.
ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE ACT OF THE JUVENILE ACCUSED CONSTITUTES MURDER OR

CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER?

The Act Lacks the Intent or Extreme Recklessness Required for Murder (Section 105 of BNS)
The juvenile’s act of speeding at 80 km/h, though reckless, does not demonstrate a deliberate or
premeditated intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.

The absence of aggravating circumstances such as drunken driving, street racing, or targeting the
victim indicates that the act does not meet the threshold of knowledge or intent required for
murder. The petitioner argues that the juvenile’s actions fall short of the degree of recklessness
or intent necessary for Section 105 (Murder) and instead align with Section 304 (Culpable
Homicide Not Amounting to Murder). The Act Constitutes Culpable Homicide Not Amounting
to Murder (Section 304 of BNS) The juvenile knew or should have known that driving at a high
speed in an urban area posed a risk of causing harm or death.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that he deliberately intended to harm the victim. The
petitioner argues that the act qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder because it
reflects reckless behavior with some awareness of risk but lacks the premeditation or extreme
recklessness required for murder. The Act May Constitute Death by Negligence (Section 304A of
BNS) The juvenile’s act of speeding may be classified as gross negligence but lacks the
deliberation or extreme recklessness required for culpable homicide or murder.

Speeding at 80 km/h, while unlawful and dangerous, does not automatically demonstrate
knowledge or intent to cause death.

The petitioner argues that the juvenile’s actions fall short of the degree of recklessness or intent
necessary for Section 105 (Murder) and instead align with Section 304 (Culpable Homicide Not
Amounting to Murder). The juvenile’s act of speeding may have been impulsive, driven by
youthful recklessness, without any premeditation or desire to harm.

This exception supports the argument that the act does not qualify as murder and instead falls
under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Juvenile’s Age and Capacity for Foreseeing Consequences

Under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile’s capacity to understand the
consequences of their actions must be assessed. The juvenile, being 17 years old, is still in a
developmental stage where judgment and impulse control are not fully formed. The petitioner
argues that the juvenile lacked the maturity to fully comprehend the fatal consequences of
speeding, reducing his culpability. Principle of Reformative Justice and Juvenile Rights

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 emphasizes rehabilitation and reform over punishment,
particularly for minors close to the age of 18.

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

Trying the juvenile for murder would subject him to adult punishment, contrary to the
reformative intent of the law. The petitioner argues that the act should be treated under Section
304 or 304A of BNS, allowing for a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution.
Proportionality in Sentencing

The principle of proportionality requires that the punishment match the degree of culpability.

Charging the juvenile with murder (Section 105 of BNS) imposes an extreme penalty for an act
stemming from negligence or youthful recklessness.

Instead, a charge under Section 304 or 304A of BNS aligns with the juvenile’s actual culpability
and allows for an appropriate response under the juvenile justice system.
Precedents Supporting Lesser Charges (Mapped to BNS)

Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315: The court held that reckless behavior without
intent to kill amounts to negligence, not murder.

18 Ibid. Aiyar, P Ramanatha Iyer, The Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed., 2006)
20 Ibid.
21 KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)
22 EBC (2014). Civil & Criminal Practice Manual Pocket Edition. Eastern Book Company. ISBN 978-93-5145-089.
21 Ibid. * The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
25 Ibid. 26 Surendra Malik; Sudeep Malik (2015). Supreme Court on Death Sentence in Murder cases. Eastern Book Company

, R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011) 13 AIR 1985 (2) SCC 2346.
14 Supra. 15 1994 SCC Sppl. (1) 2013 JT 1993
.
KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)

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

 Moot cour-2024-2025

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 PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SPECIAL

LEAVE PETITION.

 THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED

 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.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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