2nd IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. _______/2025

FOR EXCERCISING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER SECTION 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

THE STATE OF JELI ……….………………………..........................(PETITIONER)

versus

AKASH MEHTA, ……..……………………………………….. (RESPONDENT)

RAHUL SHARMA, PRIYA IYER AND KUNAL VERMA

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….4-5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................7

TIMELINE………………………………………………………………………………..8-9

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………….10

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN REDUCING THE DEATH PENALTY

TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR THE THREE MALE ACCUSED.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER PRIYA IYER’S SENTENCE OF 7 YEARS IMPRISONMENT

JUSTIFIED.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE CIRCULATION OF ALLEGED DEEPFAKE VIDEO TARNISHED

THE REPUTATION OF THE VICTIM AND COULD INTEGRA BE CONSIDERED
RESPONSIBLE ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE.

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND MENTAL HEALTH

OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE MITIGATING FACTORS IN CASES INVOLVING
HENIOUS CRIMES.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................13

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………….…………….28

2 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

AIR All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC SC Cases

Art. Article

BSA Bhartiya Suraksha Adhiniyam

BNSS Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Saanhita

HC High Court

Govt. Government

v. Versus

BNS Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

3 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A.​ PRIMARY SOURCES

A.1​LIST OF CASES

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab tS0 (1980)

2.Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
3.Gurnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2013)
4.Nawabuddin v. State of Uk (2022)
5.Shyam Narain mandal v. State of UP (2004)
6. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004)
7.Dhanonjay Chatterjee V. State of WB , 1994
8.Maksh V• State of NCT of Delhi 2017
9.State of Rajasthan V. Kheraj Ram (2003)
10.Dilip premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
11. Vijay Pal Singh v. State of UK. (2015)
12.Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2002)
13. Dhanonjay Chatterjee V. State of WB 1994
14. State of MP V. Babulal (2008)
15. Suresh V. State of U.P (2001)16. Mahbub Shah v. King Empror (1945)
17. Ravinder Singh V. State of Haryana (2015)
18. Shakti vahini v. Union of India19. Alistor Anthony Pareira V. State of
Maharashtra 2002
20. Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015)
21. Avnish Bajaj v. State [(2005) 3 Comp LJ 364 Del]
22. Dnyandeo Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) SCC OnLine Bom 1543] Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]
23. PIL v. Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 1]
24. ⁠State of Maharashtra v. Ratan Lal

4 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

1.2​ LIST OF STATUTES

●​ Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
●​ Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhit,2023
●​ Constitution Of Indiana,1950
●​ Information Technology Act,2000
B.​ SECONDARY SOURCES
1.1.​LIST OF BOOKS
●​ V.N Shukla – Constitution Law
●​ J.N Pandey-Constitutional Law

●​ MP Jain – Constitutional Law

●​ Constitutional Law of India by Dr. Narendra Kumar
●​ KD Gaur - INDIAN PENAL CODE
●​ Dr.Ashok Kumar Jain - Criminal Law

1.2.​WEBSITE AND ARTICLES REFERRED

1)​ Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
2)​ Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
3)​ Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4)​ SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.

5 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner in the matter at the hand respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court maintains
jurisdiction to adjudicated the instant case in conformity with Article 136' of the Constitution
of Idiana.

The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court Of Indiana

THE PRESENT MEMORIAL PUTS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE

6 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.​ The Union of Indiana is a thriving and diverse nation, recognized as one of the
world's fastest-growing economies. While the government has made efforts to blend
modernity with cultural heritage, safety issues, particularly in the capital city of Jeli,
remain unresolved.
2.​ In Jeli, 17-year-old Neha Sharma went missing on January 10, 2023, after school. Her
parents reported her disappearance, and her body was found on March 15, 2023, in an
abandoned warehouse, showing signs of severe violence. Four suspects—Akash
Mehta (22), Rahul Sharma (21), Priya Iyer (17), and Kunal Verma (23)—were
identified as having kidnapped Neha and subjected her to extreme abuse from January
10 to February 20, leading to her death.
3.​ The post-mortem report revealed multiple injuries, igniting public outrage. During the
trial, the defense introduced a video allegedly showing Neha willingly with Akash,
which was later confirmed to be a deepfake. Despite this, the video's release had
already harmed her reputation before it was taken down a month later.
4.​ On May 20, 2023, police filed charges against the accused for serious crimes,
including murder and kidnapping. The trial commenced on June 15, 2023, where
Rahul claimed legal insanity due to a difficult upbringing. On December 10, 2023, all
four were convicted: Akash and Kunal received the death penalty, while Rahul was
sentenced to 10 years and Priya to 7 years.
5.​ The convictions were appealed, and on June 30, 2024, the High Court reduced the
sentences, citing the need to consider mental health and insufficient evidence. Akash
and Kunal were given life sentences, and both Rahul and Priya received 7 years.
6.​ A Public Interest Litigation was filed against the social media platform Integra for its
slow response in removing the deepfake video. On January 10, 2025, the State of Jeli
submitted a petition to the Supreme Court to restore the death penalty and reconsider
Priya's involvement. The accused argued for leniency based on their ages and
backgrounds. The Supreme Court combined the PIL with the current case and
scheduled a hearing date

7 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

TIMELINE

January 10, 2023

Neha Sharma (17) goes missing in Jeli, Indiana after school.

Her parents report her missing.

January 10 – February 20, 2023

Neha is allegedly held captive by Akash Mehta, Rahul Sharma, Priya Iyer, and Kunal Verma.

She is subjected to severe physical/mental torture and sexual violence.

March 15, 2023

Neha's body is found in an abandoned warehouse, wrapped in plastic with signs of abuse and
sexual violence.

March 17, 2023

Post-mortem confirms multiple injuries: burns, broken bones, and internal trauma.

April 5, 2023

Defense presents a video showing Neha allegedly with Akash Mehta voluntarily.

The video goes viral on Integra, a social media platform, raising questions about her
character.

April 15, 2023

Expert forensic analysis confirms the video is a deepfake.

April 17, 2023

Complaint sent to Integra requesting video removal.

May 12, 2023

Integra finally removes the video after a month-long delay, causing reputational harm.

May 20, 2023

Chargesheet filed against the accused under multiple sections including:

8 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Section 101 (Murder), 138 (Kidnapping), 70 (Gang rape), 236 (Destruction of evidence), 3(5)
(Common intention)

POCSO Act

Additional case under IT Act (66D) and Defamation (Section 354)

June 15, 2023

Trial begins in Jeli Sessions Court.

Rahul Sharma pleads legal insanity, citing Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED).

December 10, 2023

Sessions Court Conviction:

Akash Mehta & Kunal Verma: Death penalty

Rahul Sharma: 10 years imprisonment

Priya Iyer: 7 years imprisonment

June 30, 2024

High Court reduces sentences:

Akash Mehta & Kunal Verma: Life imprisonment

Rahul Sharma: 7 years

Priya Iyer: Sentence upheld

Court cites insufficient evidence, socio-economic and mental health factors

September 20, 2024

PIL filed against Integra for delay in removing the deepfake video.

January 10, 2025

Special Leave Petition filed by State of Jeli in Supreme Court:

Seeks reinstatement of death penalty

Reconsideration of Priya Iyer’s role

Stronger legal safeguards against deepfakes

9 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1
Whether the High Court erred in reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment for
the three male accused?

ISSUE 2
Whether Priya Iyer's sentence of 7 Years Imprisonment is Justified?

ISSUE 3
Whether the circulation of alleged deepfake video tarnished the reputation of the victim
and could Integra be considered responsible for that along with the people who made it?

ISSUE 4
Whether the socio-economic background and mental health of the accused can be
mitigating factors in cases involving heinous crimes?

10 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER MS. SASHA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES FOR COMMITTING

TRESPASS?

It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble supreme court of Indiana that the High court erred
in applying the “REST OF RAREST DOCTRINE’’ The crimes committed by the accused are
of heinous nature. ‚satisfying the Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980 AIR SC 898) .
Which established the test for awarding Death Penalty . The decision of the hon’ble High
Court in commuting the sentence has erred.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER PRIYA IYER’S SENTENCE OF 7 YEARS IMPRISONMENT IS

JUSTIFIED.

It is respectfully, yet firmly submitted that the sentence of seven years awarded to Priya Iyer
is not only shockingly inadequate but a travesty of justice. The Hon’ble High Court gravely
erred by failing to appreciate the depth of her culpability, the gravity of the offense, and the
legal principles governing sentencing and joint liability in heinous crimes

11 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ISSUE 3.

WHETHER THE CIRCULATION OF ALLEGED DEEPFAKE VIDEO TARNISHED

THE REPUTATION OF THE VICTIM AND COULD INTEGRA BE CONSIDERED
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT.

It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circulation of a
maliciously edited deepfake video of the deceased minor victim, Neha Sharma, has not only
undermined the trial process but has also shaken the public's trust in the integrity of India’s
criminal justice system. It represents a direct assault on the principle of fair trial, the
presumption of innocence, and the posthumous dignity of victims of sexual crimes.

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND MENTAL HEALTH

OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE MITIGATING FACTORS IN CASES INVOLVING
HEINOUS CRIMES.

It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circulation of a
maliciously edited deepfake video of the deceased minor victim, Neha Sharma, has not only
undermined the trial process but has also shaken the public's trust in the integrity of India’s
criminal justice system. It represents a direct assault on the principle of fair trial, the
presumption of innocence, and the posthumous dignity of victims of sexual crimes.

12 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1.

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN COMMUTING THE DEATH

SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT DESPITE THE CASE FALLING UNDER
THE "RAREST OF RARE" DOCTRINE

I. The Present Case Falls Within the “Rarest of Rare” Category

1
It is respectfully submitted that the offence committed by the accused persons squarely falls
within the ambit of the “rarest of rare” doctrine as laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, and further elaborated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1983) 3 SCC 4702. The doctrine mandates that the death penalty may be awarded in cases
where:

- The manner of commission of the crime is exceptionally brutal;

- The victim is defenseless;

- The crime shocks the collective conscience of society.

In the present case, a minor girl, who was vulnerable and defenseless, was subjected to a
brutal premeditated gang rape and murder. The gravity of this act, along with its social
implications, makes it a fit case for the death penalty as per these established principles.

The Supreme Court in Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 11773, held that the
imposition of the death sentence must consider aggravating circumstances and the societal
perception of justice. The brutality in this case clearly satisfies the “crime test,” and there are
no compelling mitigating circumstances to favor the accused.

II. No Leniency for Offences Against Minors

1
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
2
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
3
Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1177
13 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

In Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, Cr. Appeal No. 144 of 20224, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court firmly held that offences involving penetrative sexual assault on minors must be treated
with the utmost stringency. The Court emphasized that leniency in such cases undermines the
intent of the POCSO Act and the protective shield it seeks to offer to children.

III. Sentencing Must Reflect Social Impact and Justice

The Supreme Court in Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2013 SC 22095, asserted
that sentencing must not only punish the criminal but also account for the societal harm
caused. In cases of sexual violence against children, the torment goes beyond the individual
victim and corrodes the fabric of civilized society.

IV. Error in High Court's Application of Mitigating Factors

It is humbly submitted that the High Court erred in giving undue weight to unsubstantiated
mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., AIR
2004 SC 51506, held that sentencing is not a mechanical process and must be informed by the
context, victim profile, and impact of the offence.

V. Rehabilitation is Not Justified in the Present Case

While the principle of reformation is important, it cannot override justice in cases of extreme
barbarity. In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1994 SC 6287, the Court
ruled that crimes which shock the conscience of society warrant retributive and deterrent
responses. The lack of remorse, premeditated nature, and extreme cruelty shown by the
accused make rehabilitation both improbable and unsafe.

4
Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, Cr. Appeal No. 144 of 2022
5
Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2013 SC 2209
6
Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 5150
7
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1994 SC 628
14 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

VI. The Need for Deterrence

The death penalty, in this case, serves a crucial deterrent function. In Mukesh v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 18 (Nirbhaya case), the Apex Court upheld capital punishment
citing the grotesque and inhuman nature of the crime. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v.
Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 2249, the Court reaffirmed the need for exemplary punishment in
heinous crimes to prevent similar future acts.

VII. Judicial Precedents Justify the Death Penalty

Courts have consistently upheld the death sentence in cases where:

- The crime is premeditated and brutal (Kehar Singh v. State);

- The act destabilizes societal norms (Rajiv Gandhi & Indira Gandhi assassination cases);

- Reformation is not a viable option (Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka).

In Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 SCC 77510, the Hon’ble
Court cautioned against courts shying away from awarding death when life imprisonment is
clearly insufficient.

VIII. Victim Rights and Public Interest Take Precedence

Justice must prioritize the rights of the victim and the collective interest of society. In Vijay
Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand11 and Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab12, the Court
emphasized that justice must be proportional and responsive to public outrage and the
suffering of the victim’s family.

8
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1
9
State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 224
10
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 1 SCC 775
11
Vijay Pal Singh v. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 684

12
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1124

15 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Conclusion

In light of the facts of the present case and the established legal standards, it is humbly
submitted that the High Court erred in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.
The brutality, premeditation, and impact on societal conscience fully justify the imposition of
the death penalty. Upholding the original sentence is essential to ensuring justice, reinforcing
deterrence, and protecting the moral fabric of society.

16 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ISSUE 2.

WHETHER PRIYA IYER’S SENTENCE OF 7 YEARS IMPRISONMENT IS

JUSTIFIED.

It is respectfully, yet firmly submitted that the sentence of seven years awarded to Priya Iyer
is not only shockingly inadequate but a travesty of justice. The Hon’ble High Court gravely
erred by failing to appreciate the depth of her culpability, the gravity of the offense, and the
legal principles governing sentencing and joint liability in heinous crimes.

1) THE SENTENCE IS DISPROPORTIONATELY LENIENT AND DEFEATS THE ENDS

OF JUSTICE

In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [(1994) 2 SCC 220]13, the Apex Court
ruled that brutal crimes against women must be met with stringent punishment. The Court
held that excessive leniency encourages criminals and undermines justice. Priya Iyer's role as
a facilitator of a rape and murder of a minor is a crime that shakes the conscience of the
nation. A lenient seven-year sentence makes a mockery of the justice system. Also in the case
of State of M.P. v. Babulal [(2008) 1 SCC 234]14 the Court held that when sentencing for a
heinous crime, the interest of society, deterrence, and proportionality must override misplaced
sympathy for the accused.

2) PRIYA IYER’S CULPABILITY WAS WRONGFULLY MINIMIZED

Priya Iyer was not merely complicit; she was actively instrumental. She consciously enabled
the principal accused in committing the offense. In such circumstances, she cannot be treated
leniently.

13
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal [(1994) 2 SCC 220]
14
State of M.P. v. Babulal [(2008) 1 SCC 234]
17 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

In Suresh v. State of U.P. [AIR 2001 SC 1344]15, the Supreme Court held that even a person
who aids or facilitates the crime shares equal criminal liability under Section 34 IPC
(common intention) and Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy).

In Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 118]16, it was established that where there
is a pre-arranged plan or participation, all parties are equally liable. Similarly in the case of
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 588]17 the Supreme Court ruled that a
person aiding in preparation, concealment, or execution of a crime is equally liable for the
entire offense.

3) DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN SENTENCING COMPLETELY IGNORED

The Hon’ble Court is reminded that sentencing is not an act of mercy—it is a judicial tool to
balance retribution, deterrence, and justice. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [(2018) 7
SCC 192]18, the Supreme Court ruled that courts must impose strict penalties when the crime
is violative of constitutional rights and human dignity. In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of
Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648]19, the Court observed: "The punishment must be
proportionate to the crime and not so lenient that it becomes a mockery of the criminal justice
system."

In Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 366]20, the Court reiterated that an
inadequate sentence in a grave offense weakens public confidence in the judiciary and
emboldens wrongdoers.

15
Suresh v. State of U.P. [AIR 2001 SC 1344]
16
Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 118]
17
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 588]
18
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192]
19
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 2 SCC 648]
20
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 366]
18 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

4) PRECEDENTS DEMAND STRICT PUNISHMENT FOR ABETTORS AND

CO-CONSPIRATORS

The Apex Court in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]21 laid down that
“when collective conscience is shocked, deterrent punishment is the only answer.” Priya Iyer
enabled a brutal and premeditated act, targeting a minor. Her sentence must reflect this
depravity. Similarly in the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
[(2012) 4 SCC 37]22, the Court awarded the death penalty for the rape and murder of a minor,
emphasizing the aggravating factor of extreme vulnerability and brutality.

5) LENIENCY DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF DETERRENCE

The jurisprudence on sentencing clearly states that deterrence plays a key role in punishing
heinous crimes. In State of M.P. v. Saleem [(2005) 5 SCC 554]23, the Court observed: “Undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and
undermine the public confidence.”

In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 734]24, the Court warned that
lenient sentencing in brutal crimes erodes the fabric of criminal justice and encourages repeat
offenses.

6) THE VICTIM’S RIGHTS AND PUBLIC INTEREST HAVE BEEN IGNORED

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka ,eaffirmed that crimes
involving sexual violence, particularly against women and minors, require the strictest
punishment. The court stressed that justice is not just retribution—it is a moral and legal
obligation owed to the victim and society. In the case of State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh

21
Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]
22
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 4 SCC 37]
23
State of M.P. v. Saleem [(2005) 5 SCC 554]
24
Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 734]
19 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

25
[(2015) 3 SCC 441] The Court emphasized the need for proportional sentencing,
particularly when the victim’s rights and public conscience are involved.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above, the prosecution humbly and strongly submits that:

The seven-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the crime and Priya Iyer’s
involvement;

The sentence undermines the deterrent function of criminal law;

It fails to respect the rights of the victim and the moral outrage of society;

Judicial precedents demand harsher punishment for active abettors in heinous crimes,
especially involving minors.

Therefore, this Hon’ble Court is urged to:

Set aside the sentence awarded by the High Court, and Impose a punishment commensurate
with the severity of Priya Iyer’s conduct, consistent with established constitutional and
criminal jurisprudence. Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done. Anything
less is an affront to the rule of law.

25
State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh [(2015) 3 SCC 441]
20 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ISSUE 3.

WHETHER THE CIRCULATION OF ALLEGED DEEPFAKE VIDEO TARNISHED

THE REPUTATION OF THE VICTIM AND COULD INTEGRA BE CONSIDERED
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE IT.

It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the circulation of a
maliciously edited deepfake video of the deceased minor victim, Neha Sharma, has not only
undermined the trial process but has also shaken the public's trust in the integrity of India’s
criminal justice system. It represents a direct assault on the principle of fair trial, the
presumption of innocence, and the posthumous dignity of victims of sexual crimes.

1) THE DEEPFAKE VIDEO WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT JUDICIAL

PROCESS AND PUBLIC TRUST

The doctored video sought to falsely portray the victim as complicit in her own abduction and
assault. It was not a mere act of digital mischief—it was a calculated attempt to interfere with
ongoing legal proceedings, erode public sympathy, and reframe the narrative to benefit the
accused.

As held in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158]26, the Supreme
Court stressed that fair trial is the cornerstone of justice and that any external interference
capable of affecting the trial’s credibility must be met with stringent action. In the present
case, the circulation of false digital content intimidated witnesses, polarized public opinion,
and impacted the neutrality of judicial perception.

26
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 4 SCC 158]
21 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

The use of such fabricated evidence in public and judicial domains directly undermines the
due process of law and opens floodgates to trial by media and technology—an emerging
threat to the justice system.

2) INTEGRA’S FAILURE TO CURB THE VIDEO ERODED DIGITAL

ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC FAITH

The prosecution reiterates that despite being notified on April 17, 2023, the platform Integra
failed to take prompt action, allowing the video to gain widespread reach. This is not a
passive error—it is digital complicity.

In Avnish Bajaj v. State [(2005) 3 Comp LJ 364 Del]27, it was held that platforms can be held
liable when they negligently facilitate criminal activity. Integra’s inaction violated:

Section 79 of the IT Act, when read with the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021, which
mandate expeditious takedown of unlawful content within 36 hours;

And encouraged public speculation, defamation, and misdirection in a sub judice matter.

This undermines the public expectation of accountability in a tech-driven society and

challenges the doctrine of public confidence in the justice system.

3) DEEPFAKES AS AN EMERGING THREAT TO THE RULE OF LAW AND FAIR

TRIAL RIGHTS

This case has exposed a dangerous loophole in how AI and synthetic media can be
weaponized to mislead courts and the public, and to tamper with truth itself. In Nilesh
Dnyandeo Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) SCC OnLine Bom 1543]28, the Bombay
High Court held that tampering or manipulation of evidence in sexual assault cases requires
stringent judicial response, especially when it maligns the character of the victim. The
prosecution submits that deepfakes, when used to fabricate consent or defame a victim,
27
Avnish Bajaj v. State [(2005) 3 Comp LJ 364 Del]
28
Nilesh Dnyandeo Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) SCC OnLine Bom 1543]
22 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

constitute a technological perversion of justice. Such weaponization not only harms the
immediate case, but threatens public confidence in every future trial where digital evidence is
involved.

4) RULE OF LAW DEMANDS A STRONG JUDICIAL REBUKE TO RESTORE FAITH

The dissemination of this video must be condemned as an attack on the Rule of Law, and this
Hon’ble Court must respond with:

Deterrent jurisprudence, as discussed in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC

684]29, where the Supreme Court emphasized that punishment must serve as a message to
society.

Reinforcement of the principle that no one, not even digital intermediaries or AI creators, can
act with impunity when public justice is at stake.

The Doctrine of Institutional Integrity, as explained in Centre for PIL v. Union of India
[(2011) 4 SCC 1]30, applies here: Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and
any distortion of public perception through falsified media weakens the legitimacy of courts.

CONCLUSION

The prosecution respectfully submits that this Hon’ble Court must view this incident not in
isolation but as a precedent-setting moment. If such conduct is allowed without consequence,
it paves the way for future misuse of deepfake technology to obstruct justice, intimidate
victims, and pollute the judicial process.

29
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]
30
PIL v. Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 1]
23 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ISSUE 4 Can Socio-Economic Background and Mental Health Serve as Mitigating

Factors in Heinous Crimes?

It is humbly submitted that socio-economic background and mental health should not be
regarded as mitigating factors in heinous crimes such as the kidnapping, rape, and murder of
Neha Sharma. Such grave offenses require a response that underscores accountability and
deterrence, prioritizing justice for the victim and society over the circumstances of the
accused.

1.​ Nature of the Crime

The nature of the crimes committed against Neha Sharma—specifically kidnapping (under
Section 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), gang rape (Section 70), and murder
(Section 101)—demands the highest level of accountability. These offenses are not isolated
acts of violence; they represent serious violations of human rights that have far-reaching
implications for the victim and society as a whole. The prosecution contends that the severity
of these crimes warrants strict penalties and that any attempt to mitigate responsibility based
on socio-economic factors or mental health undermines the gravity of the offenses.

2.​ Public Interest and Deterrence

The legal framework surrounding the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO) emphasizes the imperative to protect minors from sexual offenses. Allowing
mitigating circumstances based on socio-economic background would dilute this protective
framework and send a dangerous message to potential offenders.

Furthermore, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal
liberty, imposing a duty on the state to safeguard its citizens, particularly vulnerable

24 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

individuals like children. The prosecution argues that the state must prioritize public interest
and societal safety over individual circumstances when determining sentences for heinous
crimes.

3.​ Socio-Economic Background

The prosecution contends that socio-economic status should not absolve individuals of
accountability for their actions. Many individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds choose
lawful paths, demonstrating that behavior is primarily a matter of personal agency rather than
external circumstances.

Moreover, Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Allowing
socio-economic status as a mitigating factor would violate this fundamental principle by
treating offenders differently based on their background. This case exemplifies the need for
the law to maintain a consistent standard of justice, irrespective of personal circumstances.

4.​ Mental Health Considerations

Regarding mental health, the prosecution emphasizes that claims of insanity must be
substantiated with credible medical evidence, as outlined in Section 84 of BNS. While a
person may be deemed not criminally responsible if they cannot understand their actions due
to mental illness, the burden of proof lies with the defense to demonstrate such incapacity.
The prosecution argues that the defense's assertion of Intermittent Explosive Disorder lacks
sufficient medical backing to establish that the accused were incapable of rational thought
during the commission of the crime.

31
The case of State of Maharashtra v. Ratan Lal is instructive here, as the Supreme Court
ruled that mental health claims must be corroborated with credible evidence. In the current
case, the prosecution posits that simply claiming a mental health issue does not absolve the
accused of their actions, especially given the premeditated nature of the crimes against Neha

31
Ratan Lal vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 722

25 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Sharma. This highlights the importance of maintaining a high standard of proof when
evaluating such defenses.

5.​ Societal Impact

The prosecution underscores the importance of prioritizing the rights and dignity of the
victim, Neha Sharma. Allowing socio-economic background or mental health as mitigating
factors could further victimize those who have suffered heinous acts, undermining their
dignity and the principles of justice that society upholds. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
(1980)32, the Supreme Court affirmed that while mitigating circumstances should be taken
into account, they must not overshadow the gravity of the crime. The death penalty, in
particular, serves as a crucial deterrent against heinous acts, reflecting society's collective
abhorrence toward such offenses.

Moreover, permitting socio-economic background and mental health to influence sentencing

could create a perception of leniency, potentially leading to an increase in similar crimes and
eroding public safety. The prosecution argues that the legal system must send a clear message
that heinous crimes will be met with the full force of the law, regardless of the perpetrator's
background. This is particularly crucial in the case at hand, where the brutal nature of the
crimes necessitates a strong societal response to prevent future occurrences.

32
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]
26 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

6.​ Conclusion

In conclusion, the prosecution argues that allowing socio-economic background and mental
health to serve as mitigating factors in this case would set a dangerous precedent, enabling
individuals who commit heinous crimes to evade appropriate punishment. The severity of the
offenses against Neha Sharma necessitates a stringent legal response to uphold justice and
societal norms. The prosecution urges the court to reject any mitigating arguments based on
socio-economic status or mental health, emphasizing the need for accountability to preserve
the moral fabric of society and protect the rights of victims. Ultimately, the prosecution calls
for the court to affirm that the law must hold all individuals equally accountable, regardless
of their background, in the pursuit of justice.

27 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​
 2ND IILM MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

PRAYER

THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY
PRAYED AND IMPLODE THAT THE HON’BLE SC OF INDIANA MAY BE
PLEASED TO:

1.​ RESTORE THE DEATH PENALTY for Respondents No. 1 (Akash Mehta) and No. 2
(Kunal Verma) under Sections 101, 70, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, holding that the High Court erred in commuting their sentences despite the
heinous, premeditated nature of the crime.
2.​ ENHANCE THE SENTENCE of Respondent No. 3 (Rahul Sharma) to rigorous
imprisonment commensurate with his active role in the crime, while mandating
psychiatric evaluation and rehabilitation under monitored conditions.
3.​ DIRECT THAT RESPONDENT NO. 4 (Priya Iyer) be tried as an adult under Section
18 of the POCSO Act, 2012, given her deliberate participation in the abduction,
torture, and sexual violence inflicted upon the deceased.
4.​ HOLD INTEGRA SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM LIABLE for its negligent delay in
removing the deepfake video, imposing penalties under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act,
2000, and directing the establishment of expedited grievance redressal mechanisms to
prevent further victim harm.
5.​ ISSUE GUIDELINES to:
○​ Criminalize the creation/distribution of deepfake evidence in judicial
proceedings.
○​ Mandate immediate takedowns of defamatory/deepfake content by
intermediaries.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: S/d_____________
Date: XX/XX/XXXX Counsel for the Petitioner
28 | Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
​