TEAM CODE: TKCC 23

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

VIRELIA
From 5th TO 6th APRIL,2024

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.:1 / 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF VIRELIA

THE ADVOCATES UNION AND ORS. …..APPELLANT

VS

REPUBLIC OF VIRELIA …..RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF VIRELIA

P a g e 1 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ------------------------------------------------------

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------
4
I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES ------------------------------------------------------
REFERRED 4

II. STATUTES REFERRED ------------------------------------------------------

4
III. TABLE OF CASES ------------------------------------------------------
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ----------------------------------------------------
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ----------------------------------------------------
9
ISSUES RAISED ----------------------------------------------------
11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ----------------------------------------------------
12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ----------------------------------------------------
15
PRAYER ----------------------------------------------------
34

P a g e 2 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And
2. Art : Article
3. Doesn’t; does not
4. Hon’ble: Honourable
5. HC : High Court
6. Ors: Others
7. p: Page
8. pp: Pages
9. SC: Supreme Court
10. SCC: Supreme Court Cases
11. SCR: Supreme Court Reports
12. Sec.: Section
13. Ss.: Sections
14. v: VersuS
15. IPC-Indian Penal Code
16. SC-Supreme Court of India
17. SCC-Supreme Court Cases
18. MANU- manupatra
19. Para: Paragraph
20. u/s: Under Section
21. UOI: Union of India

P a g e 3 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED:

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35654105/

2. Death Penalty Curricula for High School. 1 Nov 2001. Michigan State University Comm
Tech Lab and Death Penalty Information Center. October 30 2015.
<http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/>

3. SCC

4. Manupatra

5. Mondaq

6. Zuckerman, Adrian. Principles of Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Web.

7. S., Rukmini. “Trial Courts Give Death Freely, but Just 5% Confirmed.” The Hindu 20 July
2015: n. pag. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

8.. van den Haag, Ernest (2009). “The ultimate punishment : A defense”. In Steven M. Cahn
(ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press, 2009.

9. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/5938/5938_2013_1_1501_43113_Judgement_21-
Mar-2023.pdf

10. https://www.livelaw.in/

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. Constitution of India,1970
2. Indian Penal Code,1860
P a g e 4 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 3. The Indian Evidence Act,1872
4. The code of Criminal Procedure,1973

III. TABLE OF CASES

1. Jagmohan Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh

2. Sher Singh vs State of Punjab (1983)
3. Mithu Singh vs state of Punjab (1983)
4. Kartar Singh vs state of Punjab
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
6. Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014) 9 SCC 737
7. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498
8. Maneka Gandhi vs union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248
9. State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh
10. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
11. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) AIR
2012 SC 3565 9 SCC 1
12. Sunil Batra vs Delhi administration (1978)
13. United Kingdom: R (on the application of Bourgass) vs secretary of state for justice
(2009)
14. State vs Rodriguez
15. IN RE. DOE (2018)
16. Bacchan Singh vs state of Punjab (1980)
17. Macchi Singh vs state of Punjab (1983)
18. State of Maharashtra vs Goraksha Ambaji adsul (2011)
19. Rajendra Prasad vs State of UP. (1979)
20. Santosh Kumar Satishbhusan Bariyar vs state of Maharastra (2009)
21. Soni Bai vs state of Chattisgarh (2007)
22. Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari vs state of Maharastra (2010)
23. Lockett vs Ohio (1978)
24. Eddings vs Oklahoma (1982)
25. Penry vs Lynaugh (1989)
26. People vs Anderson (1987)
27. Mithu v. State of Punjab [1983] 2 SCR 690
28. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[1980] 2 SCR 684
29. T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu [1983] 2 SCR 348

P a g e 5 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
30. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 6 SCC 498
31. Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal [2007] 12 SCC 230
32. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 13 SCC 767
33. Sangeet v. State of Haryana" is [2013] 2 SCC 452

P a g e 6 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS

HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
REPUBLIC OF VERILIA

THE PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS APPEAL IS

MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VERILIA.

________________________________________

II. Legal Framework

Under the Article 32 of the constitution of India the appellant has the right to seek such

appeal as follows-

32. 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 Will 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.

III. Basis for Jurisdiction

Cause of Action:

P a g e 7 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
The human right violation occurred within the territorial limits of India.

The petitioner asserts its rights under the Constitution of India

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as the highest judicial authority, has the competence to
address all the legal issues.

________________________________________

IV. Conclusion

In light of the above, we submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is the appropriate &
exclusive forum for adjudicating the cases of human right violation. This statement serves as a
preliminary assertion of jurisdiction. Further legal arguments & evidence will be presented during
the proceedings.

P a g e 8 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mr. X, a resident of Virelia, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1998 for the murder of his
spouse in 1995 under Section 302 of the Virelian Penal Code.

2. During his incarceration, Mr. X formed a relationship with his cellmate, Mr. Y, leading to his
marriage to Mr. Y's daughter in 2001.

3. In 2005, Mr. X, plagued by suspicions of his wife's infidelity, committed another brutal crime
by murdering his wife and twin sons during a brief parole visit.

4. Mr. X confessed to the crimes but maintained silence during his initial court appearance, setting
the stage for a lengthy legal battle.

5. Mr. X received lacklustre legal representation, with his government-appointed lawyer showing
minimal interest in mounting a robust defence.

6. Despite the lack of adequate representation, Mr. X faced conviction under Sections 302 and 303
of the Virelian Penal Code in 2009.

7. The Sessions Court delivered a harsh sentence, condemning Mr. X to death, sparking internal
discord within the High Court judges.

8. Attempts to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court in 2010 were unsuccessful due to the
absence of significant legal issues.

9. Efforts, including a mercy petition in 2013, failed to mitigate Mr. X's sentence.

10. An oversight by prison authorities in 2016 resulted in Mr. X being kept in the general inmate
population rather than designated death row cells.

11. A death warrant was issued on New Year's Day in 2017, prompting a response from a human
rights advocacy group alleging procedural irregularities and constitutional violations.

12. The petitioners argued that the haste in issuing the death warrant ignored Mr. X's right to
exhaust all legal avenues, constituting a violation of principles of natural justice.

P a g e 9 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
13. The lack of effective legal representation during the trial became a focal point, casting doubt
on the overall fairness of the judicial process.

14. Forensic evidence, including DNA analysis and crime scene reconstruction, emerged to
strengthen the case against Mr. X, with his DNA found on the murder weapon and at the crime
scene.

15. Oral arguments in the legal battle are poised to explore the delicate balance between the need
for a thorough review of legal irregularities and the finality of Mr. X's conviction, with the looming
possibility of execution.

P a g e 10 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 ISSUES RAISED

Issue 1: Whether conviction of x was in accordance with fundamental rights of articles 14

read with article 20?

Sub issues

1.1 Whether imposing the death penalty is the violation of principle of natural justice?

1.2 Whether Mr. X conviction curtails the human rights given in the Virelian Constitution?

Issue 2 Whether conviction of Mr. X was a fair trial as enshrined in the virelian Constitution?

Sub issues

2.1 Why was X put in general prison?

2.2 Does this case falls in the category of rarest of the rare case?

Issue 3 Whether the death penalty should be abolished in the republic of Virelian?

Sub issues

3.1 Whether death penalty is in itself justified as a form of punishment or not.

3.2 Does capital punishment lead to deterrence?

3.3 Whether legal system is capable enough to discharge death penalty or not.

P a g e 11 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER CONVICTION OF X WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF ARTICLES 14 READ WITH ARTICLE 20?

1.1 WHETHER IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY IS THE VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE

OF NATURAL JUSTICE?

The imposition of the death penalty on Mr. X violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14
and 20 of the Indian Constitution. Firstly, the abrupt issuance of the death warrant deprived Mr. X
of the chance to pursue further legal remedies, denying him the opportunity to present new
evidence or challenge procedural irregularities. This hasty action disregards the essence of natural
justice, which mandates a thorough examination before such a severe punishment is imposed.
Secondly, the lack of effective legal representation during Mr. X's trial further compounds the
violation of natural justice. His government-appointed lawyer's inadequate performance deprived
him of a fair trial. Additionally, the emergence of forensic evidence, while significant, does not
negate the systemic flaws in Mr. X's trial. Even if this evidence implicates him, it does not excuse
authorities from upholding his constitutional rights. In conclusion, the petitioner asserts that Mr.
X's case warrants a thorough review in line with natural justice principles before any irreversible
action is taken.

1.2 WHETHER CONVICTION OF X WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF ARTICLES 14 READ WITH ARTICLE 20?

The petitioner argues that Mr. X's conviction violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 20 of the Virelian Constitution. Firstly, Mr. X's right to equality before the law was
compromised due to ineffective legal representation during his trial. The government-appointed
lawyer's poor performance undermined Mr. X's right to a fair trial. Additionally, the rushed
issuance of the death warrant without allowing Mr. X to exhaust all legal avenues violates his right
to due process. This denial of sufficient time to pursue appeals denies him the opportunity to seek
P a g e 12 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
justice through proper legal channels. Moreover, imposing the death penalty on Mr. X without
addressing serious legal irregularities violates his human rights. The rush to execute him disregards
principles of natural justice and fairness. In conclusion, Mr. X's conviction not only infringes upon
his fundamental rights but also undermines principles of fairness, justice, and human dignity in the
Virelian Constitution.

2. WHETHER CONVICTION OF MR X WAS A RESULT OF FAIR TRIAL AS

ENSHRINED IN THE VIRELIAN CONSTITUTION?

The placement of Mr. X in the general inmate population instead of designated death row cells
raises significant concerns about the fairness of his trial and the legality of the subsequent death
warrant. This decision exposes him to potential risks such as physical harm, intimidation, and
coercion from other inmates, which could compromise his ability to participate effectively in his
defense. International standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), stress the importance of segregating death row
inmates to protect their rights and prevent harm.

3. WHETHER THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN THE REPUBLIC

OF VIRELIAN?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that death penalty should be abolished in Virelia
as The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all human
rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to any kind of torture and other cruel, inhumane
or degrading treatment or punishment. Capital punishment rules out the possibility of rehabilitation
and restitution. It clearly satisfies incapacitation, for execution of the individual leaves no space
for the offender to commit a crime again. But so does life imprisonment, which in fact, also has
space for rehabilitation. Rights groups and activists have said, however, that evidence from around
the world shows that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. Substituting death

P a g e 13 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
penalty with life imprisonment, not only meets the purpose of punishment, but also prevents the
society from committing the crime of executing the innocent. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
admitted that it has arbitrarily imposed this most extreme punishment. It depends overwhelmingly
on the adjudicator’s personal beliefs. Judges opposed to it never gave a death sentence; those in
favor doled it out.

P a g e 14 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.WHETHER CONVICTION OF X WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS OF ARTICLES 14 READ WITH ARTICLE 20?

The main issue of this petition was whether the conviction of Mr x was in accordance with the
fundamental rights of article 14 and 20 has been followed or not, and petitioner believes that these
fundamental principles were not followed while delivering the pronouncement of death penalty by
the subordinate court of this apex authority.

Firstly, the abrupt issuance of the Acc. To Article 14 of the Indian Constitution “The State shall
not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.”

In the case of Jagmohan Singh vs state of Uttar Pradesh (1973), The supreme court of India
considered the imposition of the death penalty in a murder case. Jagmohan Singh was convicted
of murdering his wife and was sentenced to death by the trial court. The high court upheld the
death sentence.The case reached the supreme court, where the main issue was whether the death
penalty was the appropriate punishment for Jagmohan Singh. The supreme court examined the
circumstances of the case and considered various factors, including the nature of the crime, the
role of the accused, and any mitigating circumstances.

The supreme court held that the imposition of the death penalty without considering the possibility
of reform and rehabilitation of the accused violated article 14 of the Indian constitution, which
guarantees the right to equality before the law . The court emphasized that the death penalty should
be imposed only in the rarest of the rare cases and after a careful consideration of all relevant
factors.

In light of these considerations, the supreme court commuted Jagmohan Singh’s death sentence to
life imprisonment. The court decision reflected its view that the death penalty should be reserved
for the most exceptional cases and that the possibility of reform and rehabilitation should be taken
into account in sentencing.

Also, In the case of Sher Singh vs State of Punjab (1983)

P a g e 15 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
Sher Singh was convicted of murdering his wife and mother-in-law and was sentenced to death
penalty by the trial court. The high court upheld the death sentence.

The case reached the supreme court where the main issue was whether the death penalty was the
appropriate punishment for Sher Singh. The supreme court examined the circumstances of the case
and considered various factors, including the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, and any
mitigating circumstances.

The supreme court held that the imposition of the death penalty without proper consideration of
the accused’s mental health issues and without affording him adequate legal representation
violated article 14 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law.
The court emphasized that the death penalty should be Imposed only in the rarest of the rare cases
and after a careful consideration of all relevant factors.

And in the case of Mithu Singh vs state of Punjab (1983), The supreme court of India considered
the constitutionality of the section 303 IPC, which mandated the death penalty for certain offenses,
specifically for life convicts committing murder while serving a life sentence.

Mithu Singh, a life convict, was charged with murder while serving his life sentence. Under section
303, he was mandatorily sentenced to death upon conviction. Mithu Singh challenged the
constitutional validity of section 303, arguing that it violated Article 14 (right to equality) and
21(right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian constitution.

The supreme court, in a landmark judgement, struck down section 303 as unconstitutional. The
court held that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under section 303 violated article 14
as it did not allow for any discretion or consideration of individual circumstances. The court also
held that the provision violated article 21 as it deprived the convict of the opportunity to present
mitigating factors against the death penalty.

Hence, the petitioner humbly submits that Mr x was not treated equally before the law compared
to other individuals in similar circumstances. The imposition of the death penalty on Mr x, while
others in similar cases received lesser punishments, indicates a violation of his rights to equality
before the law.

P a g e 16 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
Article 20 of the Constitution provides for the protection in respect of conviction for offences. No
one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence at the time of its commission, and no one
can be given punishment greater than what was provided in the law prevalent at the time of its
commission. A supporting case law Kartar Singh vs state of Punjab, Where the supreme court
held that double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for the same offence, even if the offences
are distinct. The court emphasized that the principle applies not only to successive prosecutions
but also to successive punishments

ARTICLE 21-VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

Mr. X's conviction and imposition of the death penalty may violate his fundamental right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Virelian Constitution. The right to life is
not merely the right to exist but also includes the right to live with human dignity. The imposition
of the death penalty deprives Mr. X of his right to life and denies him the opportunity to reform
and rehabilitate.

Case Law: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court emphasized that the death
penalty should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases and after considering all mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. The Court recognized the importance of the right to life and the need
for a balancing act between the interest of the individual and society.

Relevance to Mr. X's Case: In Mr. X's case, the imposition of the death penalty without considering
mitigating factors or alternative punishments may be seen as a violation of his right to life and
personal liberty. The death penalty is irreversible and deprives Mr. X of any chance of reform or
rehabilitation, which is a crucial aspect of the right to life with dignity.

Conclusion: Therefore, the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. X may be unconstitutional as it
violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Virelian Constitution. The State should consider alternative punishments that allow for the
possibility of reform and rehabilitation, in accordance with the principles laid down by
the Supreme Court.

P a g e 17 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
1.1 whether imposing the death penalty is the violation of principle of natural justice?

The imposition of the death penalty in Mr. X’s case raises significant concerns regarding the
violation of the principle of natural justice. Despite the gravity of the crimes committed, the rushed
issuance of the death warrant without allowing Mr. X to exhaust all legal avenues infringes upon
his fundamental right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution.

to a violation of his protection against double jeopardy under article 20(2) of the virelian
constitution.

Therefore, the imposition of the death penalty on Mr x for the second offence may be
unconstitutional due death warrant deprived Mr. X of the opportunity to pursue further legal
remedies, denying him the chance to present new evidence or challenge procedural irregularities
that may have occurred during his trial. This hasty action disregards the essence of natural justice,
which mandates a thorough and impartial examination of all legal aspects before such a severe
punishment is imposed.

Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014): In this case, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of providing adequate legal representation to death row prisoners,
ensuring that they receive a fair trial and have access to effective legal assistance throughout the
legal process.

Also, the lack of effective legal representation during Mr. X’s trial further compounds the violation
of natural justice. His government-appointed lawyer’s lacklustre performance and apparent
disinterest in mounting a robust defence deprived Mr. X of his right to a fair trial. Every individual
facing criminal charges is entitled to competent legal representation to ensure that their rights are
protected and that justice is served. However, in Mr. X’s case, this fundamental safeguard was
compromised, undermining the integrity of the entire judicial process.

P a g e 18 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): In this case, the Supreme
Court reiterated the importance of fair trial rights in death penalty cases, emphasizing the need for
strict adherence to procedural safeguards and the principles of natural justice.

Moreover, the emergence of forensic evidence, while seemingly damning, does not negate the
systemic flaws and irregularities that marred Mr. X’s trial. Even if the forensic evidence implicates
him in the crimes, it does not absolve the authorities of their duty to ensure that his constitutional
rights are upheld throughout the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the imposition of the death penalty in Mr. X’s case represents a clear violation of
the principle of natural justice. The rushed issuance of the death warrant, coupled with the lack of
effective legal representation, undermines the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. As
such, it is imperative that Mr. X be afforded the opportunity to have his case thoroughly reviewed
in accordance with the principles of natural justice before any irreversible action is taken.

1.2 Whether Mr. X conviction curtails the human rights given in the Virelian Constitution?

Mr x’s conviction raises question regarding the extent to which it curtails his human rights under
the virelian constitution, particularly in terms of the right to life, liberty, and dignity.

The virelian constitution guarantees the protection of fundamental rights to all individuals,
including those accused of crimes, ensuring that their rights are not unduly curtailed or infringed
upon.

Mr x’s conviction raises significant concerns regarding the potential curtailment of his human
rights under the virelian constitution. The virelian constitution is committed to upholding the
fundamental rights of all individuals, including those accused of crimes, and ensures that their
rights are protected and upheld throughout the legal process.

One of the core principles of the virelian constitution is the protection of the right to life, liberty,
dignity. Article 21 of the constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or
P a g e 19 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This protection extends to
all individuals, including those who have been accused and convicted of crimes.

The imposition of a conviction in cases where the death penalty, is involved, must be in strict
accordance with the principles of the natural justice and the safeguards provided by the
constitution. The supreme court of virella has repeatedly emphasized that the right to life and
personal liberty under article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to
live with human dignity.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs union of India, The supreme court held that the right to life and
personal liberty is of paramount importance and must be protected and upheld in all circumstances.
Any curtailed of these rights must be strictly in accordance with the law and must not infringe
upon the dignity and integrity of the individual.

Therefore, Mr x’s conviction must be scrutinized to ensure that it does not violate his fundamental
rights under the virelian constitution. Any procedural irregularities or constitutional violations in
his trial must be addressed to ensure that his rights are protected and upheld. The imposition of the
death penalty, In particular, must be in strict accordance with the principles of natural justice and
the safeguards provided by the constitution.

Mr x’s conviction and the subsequent death penalty not only deprive him of his right to life but
also undermine his right to a fair trial and his right to live with dignity. The haste in issuing the
death warrant without considering these fundamental rights raises serious concerns about the
fairness and legality of the entire judicial process.

In State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh, Dalbir Singh was convicted for the murder of five members
of a family and sentenced to death under section 302 of IPC. The case raised the question of
whether the imposition of the death penalty in this instance was constitutional.

The supreme court upheld the death penalty in this case. however, the court laid down important
principles regarding the imposition of the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for
the “rarest of the rare” cases where the crime is exceptionally heinous and the convict poses a
grave danger to society.

P a g e 20 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
This case established the rarest of the rare doctrine, which has since been followed in India to
determine whether the death penalty should be imposed in a given case. It emphasized that the
death penalty should be imposed sparingly and only in the most exceptional circumstances.

The conviction of Mr. X raises significant concerns regarding the violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 20 of the Virelian Constitution. Firstly, Mr. X's right to equality
before the law, as enshrined in Article 14, was compromised due to the lack of effective legal
representation during his trial. The government-appointed lawyer's lacklustre performance resulted
in a defense that failed to adequately challenge the prosecution's case, undermining Mr. X's right
to a fair trial.

Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): This case addressed issues related to delays in
the execution of death sentences and the rights of death row prisoners. The Supreme Court ruled
that prolonged delays in executing death sentences amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment,
violating the right to life and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the hurried issuance of the death warrant without allowing Mr. X to exhaust all legal
avenues violates his right to due process under Article 20. The denial of sufficient time to pursue
appeals and petitions denies him the opportunity to fully exercise his legal rights and seek justice
through proper legal channels. This haste in the execution process disregards the principles of
natural justice and fairness, which are integral to upholding the rule of law in a democratic society.

Moreover, imposing the death penalty on Mr. X under these circumstances constitutes a violation
of his human rights as guaranteed by the Virelian Constitution. The rush to execute him without
addressing the serious legal irregularities and constitutional violations that procedural safeguards
are upheld.

In the Case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012), the
Court addresses the issue of the death penalty and emphasizes the need for strict adherence to
procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards in capital punishment cases
P a g e 21 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
In conclusion, Mr. X's conviction not only infringes upon his fundamental rights under Articles 14
and 20 but also undermines the principles of fairness, justice, and human dignity enshrined in the
Virelian Constitution. It is imperative that his case be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that his rights
are upheld and that justice is served in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.

2. WHETHER CONVICTION OF MR X WAS A RESULT OF FAIR TRIAL AS ENSHRINED

IN THE VIRELIAN CONSTITUTION

These issues are most important and noteworthy, the very first thing which is to be noticed that
whether the conviction of Mr x was a result of fair trial enshrined or mentioned under the virelian
constitution or not?

Mr x’s conviction may not have been the result of a fair trial as guaranteed by the virelian
constitution and these can be proved in the following sub issues.

2.1 WHY WAS MR X WAS PUT IN GENERAL CELL RATHER THAN IN DEATH ROW
CELL?

Mr x’s placement in the general inmate population rather than the designated death row cells raises
serious concerns about the fairness of his trial and the legality of the subsequent death warrant.

There was a potential risks Mr x’s faces in the general population, including the possibility of
physical harm or intimidation from other inmates, which could compromise his ability to
participate effectively in his defence.

The General inmate population may include individuals with varying levels of criminal history
and behaviour, potentially exposing Mr x to physical harm, intimidation, or coercion from other
inmates.

P a g e 22 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
This environment may hinder Mr x’s ability to effectively participate in his Défense, communicate
with legal counsel, and access necessary resources, thereby compromising his right to a fair trial .

VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS:

International standards, such as the United Nations Standard Minimum rules for the Treatment of
prisoners (Nelson Mandela rules), emphasize the importance of segregating death row cells
inmates from the general population to protect their rights and prevent potential harm.

: The failure to segregate Mr X from the general population not only violates these international
standards but also undermines the fairness and integrity of the legal process.

Case laws

1 - Sunil Batra vs Delhi administration (1978): in this landmark case, the supreme court of India
held that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 of the Indian constitution
includes the right to protection of life and limb while in custody. the court emphasized the duty of
the state to ensure the safety and well being of prisoners, including segregating them from
potentially dangerous inmates

While this case primarily addresses concerns about prison conditions and inmate safety, it
underscores the importance of segregating certain inmates to protect their rights.

2- United Kingdom: R (on the application of Bourgass) vs secretary of state for justice (2009):

In this case, the UK High court considered the placement of a high profile and potentially
dangerous prisoner within the prison system. while the specifics of the case may differ from Mr
x’s situation, it highlights the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the placement of
inmates in various prison environment. The court’s decision may provide insights into the factors
considered when determining where to house prisoners, including concerns and safety.

PRECEDENT IN THE VIRELIAN JURISPRUDENCE

P a g e 23 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
1 State vs Rodriguez (2015): In this virelia case, the court held that the segregation of inmates
facing capital charges from the general population is essential to safeguarding their rights to a fair
trial and protecting their safety. failure to segregate such inmates may constitute a violation of their
constitutional rights.

2- IN RE. DOE (2018): The court emphasized the duty of prison authorities to ensure the safety
and security of all inmates, particularly those facing capital charges. Segregation from the general
population is considered a necessary measure to prevent potential harm and uphold the principles
of fairness and justice.

2.2: DOES THIS CASE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF RAREST OF RARE CASES?

Doctrine of rarest of rare:

This is a legal doctrine used in the virelia to determine whether a particular case warrants the
imposition of the death penalty. The doctrine was established by the supreme court of virelia in
the landmark case of Bacchan Singh vs state of Punjab (1980).

According to this doctrine, the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of the rare” cases
where the alternative punishment of life imprisonment would be inadequate. The court clarified
that this category should include only those cases where the crime is of an exceptional nature,
involving extreme depravity and brutality.

The court considers the various factors, including the nature of the crime, the manner in which it
was committed, the motive behind it, and the impact on society. The court also takes into account
the character of the offender, including their criminal history and whether there is a likelihood of
their committing similar crimes in the future.

The rarest of the rare doctrine is intended to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed
indiscriminately but is reserved for the most exceptional cases where it is considered the only
appropriate punishment. It reflects a balance between the need for justice and the recognition of
the inherent dignity of every individual, even those who have committed heinous crimes.

P a g e 24 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
Now, if we are observing the nature of the crime which Mr x has committed, it certainly not falls
under the category of rarest of the rare, the imposition of the death penalty is the result of hastiness
and without giving the fair trials to Mr x

.1- ASSESMENT OF SEVERITY OF THE CRIME: Mr x’s should be evaluated to determine the
severity of the crime committed and whether it meets the threshold for the rarest of rare category
for the death penalty.

Case law: BACCHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980): This landmark case established
the “rarest of the rare” doctrine regarding the imposition of the death penalty in India. The court
emphasized the need for a careful assessment of the circumstances of each case to determine the
appropriateness of the death penalty.

2- Macchi Singh vs state of Punjab (1983): In this case, the supreme court of India provided
guidelines whether a case qualifies as rarest of the rare based on the nature of the crimes, including
factors such as brutality, motive and impact on society.

3- State of Maharashtra vs Goraksha Ambaji adsul (2011): The court reiterated the importance
of considering mitigating factors and individual circumstances in capital cases when assessing the
severity of the crimes and determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.

4- Rajendra Prasad vs State of UP. (1979): In this case, the court emphasized the need for the
consistency and objectivity in applying the rarest of the rare doctrine ensuring that the death
penalty is reserved for the most exceptional cases where other punishments are inadequate.

5- Santosh Kumar Satishbhusan Bariyar vs state of Maharastra (2009): The court stressed the
importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in capital sentencing to ensure that the
death penalty is imposed only in the most deserving cases.

In all these cases it was clear from the perspective the courts that for being in the rarest of the rare
category the crimes should have the highest level of brutality in spite of Mr x crime was heinous
it does not qualify in the category rarest of the rare category because, from the circumstantial
evidence it was never mentioned anywhere that how the crime was committed, and Mr x does not

P a g e 25 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
have the pre mediation of mind i.e. the motive for commencing such level of crime, there was no
further medical examination of the mental wellness of Mr x at the time of arresting Mr x, so only
on the basis of certain improper and hastiness of giving death penalty it can not be came in the
category of “rarest of the rare”

: It is imperative to recognize that while Mr x’s action is undoubtedly regrettable and tragic, they
do not meet the stringent criteria necessary to classify them as falling within the rarest of the rare
category warranting the imposition of death penalty.

Firstly, it is crucial to consider the mitigating factors surrounding Mr x’s offence i.e. lack of
premeditation, potential mental health issues these two factors mitigate the severity of Mr x’s
culpability and suggest that his actions were not driven by a malicious intent to cause harm.

Moreover, the circumstances surrounding the offence must be evaluated in the context of Mr x’s
background and upbringing such as the incident which happen in his life due to his first marriage
and due to mental agony, he feared and does not understand the nature of his act, understanding
the broader context in which the offence occurred is essential for a fair and just assessment of Mr
x’s culpability.

Additionally, it is essential to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing. While Mr x’s

actions may have resulted in tragic consequences, it is arguable that the imposition of death penalty
would be disproportionate given the specific circumstances of the case.

CASE LAWS: Soni Bai vs state of Chattisgarh (2007)

: Soni bai was convicted of murdering her husband by pouring acid on him while he was asleep.
she was sentenced to death by the trial court under section 302 IPC.

Soni bai appealed the trial court’s verdict to Chhattisgarh high court, which upheld the death
sentence.

Soni bai then appealed to the supreme court, challenging the validity of the death sentence imposed
on her.

P a g e 26 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
The supreme court reviewed the evidence and circumstances of the case. While acknowledging
the seriousness of the offence, the court considered mitigating factors such as Soni Bai’s socio-
economic background, the absence of pre mediation of mind, and the possibility of her
rehabilitation.

2- SANTOSH KUMAR SATISBHUSAN BARIYAR VS STATE OF MAHARASTRA (2009)

: Santosh Kumar satisbhusan bariyar was convicted for the murder of six members of a family,
including two children, in Pune, Maharashtra 2002. He was sentenced to death by the trial court
under section 302 IPC.

Bariyar appealed the trial court’s verdict to the Bombay high court, which confirmed the death
sentence.

Bariayar then appealed to the supreme court, challenging the validity of the death sentence
imposed on him.

The supreme court reviewed the evidence and circumstances of the case. while acknowledging the
gravity of the offences, the court considered mitigating factors such as bariyar’s young age of 22
at the time of offence.

3- Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari vs state of Maharastra (2010)

: Dilip Prem Narayan Tiwari was convicted for the murder of his wife and two children in
Maharashtra. he was sentenced to death by the trial court under section 302 of the Indian penal
code.

Tiwari appealed the trial’s court verdict to the Bombay high court, which confirmed the death
sentence

Tiwari then appealed to the supreme court, challenging the validity of the death sentence imposed
on him. The supreme court reviewed the evidence and circumstances of the case. while
acknowledging the seriousness of the offence, the court considered mitigating factors such as

P a g e 27 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
Tiwari’s troubled marital relationship, potential mental health issues, and the absence of pre
mediation off mind.

Furthermore, the imposition of the death penalty carries irreversible consequences. Once executed,
there is no possibility of rectifying any potential miscarriage of justice. given the fallibility of legal
system, it would be prudent for the court to err on the side of caution and opt for a less irreversible
form of punishment.

In conclusion, while Mr x’s offense is undoubtedly serious, it does not meet the high threshold
required to classify it as “rarest of the rare”. Considering the mitigating factors of Mr x’s
background the principle of proportionality, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty, it is
respectfully submitted that a lesser form of punishment would be more appropriate in this case.

1 – Lockett vs Ohio (1978): In this case, the supreme court of United States held that capital
sentencing must allow for consideration of mitigating factors relevant to the defendant’s character
and background. The Court emphasized the need for individualized sentencing in capital cases.

2- Eddings vs Oklahoma (1982): The court reaffirmed the principle that mitigating evidence
concerning the defendant’s background and character must be considered in capital sentencing.
The failure to consider such evidence may constitute a violation of the defendant’s constitutional
rights.

3- Penry vs Lynaugh (1989): In this case, the court held that jurors must be able to consider and
give effect to mitigating evidence of the defendant’s mental impairments and abusive upbringing
during the sentencing phase of a capital trial.

4- People vs Anderson (1987) -The court emphasized the importance of considering mitigating
factors, such as the defendant’s mental state and capacity, when determining whether to impose
the death penalty in capital cases

P a g e 28 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
3. WHETHER THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED IN INDIA?

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the provision of a death sentence for various offenses
like criminal conspiracy, murder, waging war against the nation, dacoity etc. Various other
legislation like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 also provides for the death penalty.

India prescribes the “rarest of the rare” principle in handing out death penalty, following the ruling
in the case of Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab. However, there are no clear guidelines on what
constitutes ‘rarest of the rare’ and is subject to the court’s discretion, which as argued, could lead
to arbitrariness of the decision.

Though it is arguable, in principle, we do agree that the guilty deserves to be punished. The degree
and mode of punishment, for grave offences, is the bone of contention here.

3.1 Whether death penalty is in itself justified as a form of punishment or not.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that every citizen has an inalienable right to life
and the state can’t revoke it, under any circumstances whatsoever. There have been and always
will be cases of executions of innocent people. No matter how developed a justice system is, it
will always remain susceptible to human failure. Unlike prison sentences, the death penalty is
irreversible and irreparable.

The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity

The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the most basic of all human rights.
It also violates the right not to be subjected to any kind of torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover, the death penalty undermines human dignity which
is inherent to every human being.

The world moving away from the death penalty.

P a g e 29 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
The European Union has made “abolition of death penalty” a pre-requisite for membership. In
November 2012, the United Nations adopted a resolution to establish a moratorium on executions
and abolition of death penalty for the fourth time. Amnesty International reports that about one
hundred and forty countries have abolished death penalty either in law or in practice. This accounts
for more than two thirds of the countries of the world.

Dr. Ambedkar was personally in favour of abolition saying: My other view is that rather than have
a provision for conferring appellate power upon the Supreme Court to whom appeals in cases of
death sentence can be made, I would much rather than have a provision for conferring appellate
power upon the Supreme Court to whom appeals in cases of death sentence can be made, I would
much rather support the abolition of the death sentence itself. That, I think, is the proper course to
follow, so that it will end this controversy. After all, this country by and large believe in the
principle of non-violence. It has been its ancient tradition, and although people may not be
following it in actual practice, they certainly adhere to the principle of non-violence as a moral
mandate which they ought to observe as far as they possibly can and I think that having regard to
this fact, the proper thing for this country to do is to abolish the death sentence altogether.57

In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, 97 the Supreme Court was confronted with the mandatory
sentence of death enacted in Section 303 of the IPC. The Court held that the mandatory death
sentence was unconstitutional, stating: A standardized mandatory sentence, and that too in the
form of a sentence of death, fails to take into account the facts and circumstances of each particular
case. It is those facts and circumstances which constitute a safe guideline for determining the
question of sentence in each individual case.98

Death penalty doesn’t serves the purpose of punishment better than other forms, say life
imprisonment.

Capital punishment rules out the possibility of rehabilitation and restitution. It clearly satisfies
incapacitation, for execution of the individual leaves no space for the offender to commit a crime
again. But so does life imprisonment, which in fact, also has space for rehabilitation.

However, we believe that standards of a mature society demands a more measured response, which
is not purely based on emotion. Killing the offender would continue the cycle of violence. The
system should lead us to higher faculties, where we value and respect the value of human life,

P a g e 30 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
irrespective of crime committed by the person. In light of these arguments, though retribution has
an important role to play in punishment, we don’t think that retributive arguments should form the
basis of capital punishment; and should not be reduced to ‘vengeance’.

3.2 Does capital punishment lead to deterrence?

As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence
of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA Resolution 65/206). This does call for a large
scale empirical study for some conclusive results — either to establish or disestablish the claim.
But for now, we have to agree that deterrence doesn’t stand as a justified argument in favor of
death penalty.

The American Civil Liberties Union stated: “The facts prove that life in prison without the
possibility of parole is swift, severe, and certain punishment. The death penalty costs more, delivers
less, and puts innocent lives at risk. Life without parole provides justice to survivors of murder
victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing
violence. Sentencing people to die in prison is the sensible alternative for public safety and murder
victims’ families.”

In 2018, the Indian Home Ministry asked various state governments to respond to a proposal on
abolishing the death penalty. Of the 14 states that responded, only two supported putting an end to
capital punishment. The remaining 12 argued that the death penalty is needed to deter people from
committing serious and violent crime .Rights groups and activists have said, however, that evidence
from around the world shows that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime.

3.3 Whether legal system is capable enough to discharge death penalty or not.

Numerous committee reports as well as judgments of the Supreme Court have recognized that the
administration of criminal justice in the country is in deep crisis. The 262nd report of the Law
Commission mentions lack of resources, outdated modes of investigation, overstretched police
force, ineffective prosecution, and poor legal aid as some of the problems besetting the system.
The third report of the National Police Commission, suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 per
cent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action

P a g e 31 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
accounted for 43.2 per cent of the expenditure of the jails. Data collected by the Centre on the
Death Penalty at the National Law University, Delhi, shows that in last 15 years, trial courts in
India sentenced 1800 people to death — despite the “rarest of the rare” doctrine — but only 5%
were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, a third of them were acquitted as the legal
proceedings went on. These statistics pose questions on the legal system itself.

Error in judgements of the courts

Further, the observations made by Justice P N Bhagwati in his dissent of the Bachan Singh’s case
should be noted. Firstly, he states, that it is impossible to eliminate the chance of judicial error.
Secondly, that the death penalty strikes mostly against the poor and deprived sections of society.
For death penalty is irrevocable, the first argument calls for serious attention

In an appeal to the President of India — Pranab Mukherjee — thirteen former judges mentioned
that two prisoners who had been wrongly sentenced to death — Ravji Rao and Surja Ram — had
been executed on May 4, 1996, and April 7, 1997, respectively, due to flawed judgments.

Substituting death penalty with life imprisonment, not only meets the purpose of punishment, but
also prevents the society from committing the crime of executing the innocent.

Based on the evidence collected, the legal system cannot be trusted to take one’s life. For example,
between January 1, 2000 and June 31, 2015, the Supreme Court imposed 60 death sentences. 1/3.
It subsequently admitted that it had erred in 15 of them (25%).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly admitted that it has arbitrarily imposed this most extreme
punishment. It depends overwhelmingly on the adjudicator’s personal beliefs. Judges opposed to
it never gave a death sentence; those in favor doled it out.
The death penalty unfairly targets the poor and marginalized.

Poor prisoners on legal aid won’t get good lawyers to defend them. Even though there are cases
where the crime of the offender is well established, and as some may say, is deemed enough to be
hanged, death penalty should be abolished in practice to ensure that the innocent or a reformed
offender is not executed. Death penalty serves no better than life imprisonment as a mode of
punishment; rather it completely does away with the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice.
Need of the hour is to focus on problems that have crippled the justice system such as poor
investigation and prevention of crime.
P a g e 32 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
The continuation of death penalty is a stain on our society built on the values of nonviolence, love
and justice. Hence, in this land of Mahatma Gandhi and Gautama Buddha it is necessary to abolish
this barbaric punishment in order to be in consonance with our own inherent morals and the global
trend.

Delay in Execution of Sentence

Delay has been a matter of concern in the criminal justice system, with the adage ‘justice delayed
is justice denied’ being attributed to the plight of both victims of crime as well as the accused.
Long terms of incarceration, periods of which are on death row and in solitary confinement, have
been the concerns of courts through the years. In the case of T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil
Nadu (‘Vatheeswaran’), 102 the Court held that a delay in execution of sentence that exceeded
two years would be a violation of procedure guaranteed by Article 21.

Judicial developments on the arbitrary and subjective application of the death penalty

Despite the Court’s optimism in Bachan Singh that its guidelines will minimise the risk of arbitrary
imposition of the death penalty, there remain concerns that capital punishment is “arbitrarily or
freakishly imposed”.In the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of
Maharashtra, the Court held that “there is no uniformity of precedents, to say the least. In most
cases, the death penalty has been affirmed or refused to be affirmed by us, without laying down
any legal principle.”35

Such concerns have been reiterated on multiple occasions, where the Court has pointed that the
rarest of rare dictum propounded in Bachan Singh has been inconsistently applied. In this context,
it is instructive to examine the observations of the Supreme Court in Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of
West Bengal, 36 Swamy Shraddhananda v. State of Karnataka (‘Swamy Shraddhananda’),
Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra (‘Gafur’), 38 Sangeet v. State of Haryana
(‘Sangeet’),39 and Khade.40 In these cases, the Court has acknowledged that the subjective and
arbitrary application of the death penalty has led “principled sentencing” to become “judge-centric
sentencing”, based on the “personal predilection of the judges constituting the Bench.”

Notably, the Supreme Court has itself admitted errors in the application of the death penalty in
various cases

P a g e 33 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited,
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

1.That the court recognizes that the conviction violates the fundamental rights of Me. X provided
in article 14 and article 20 of the Virelian constitution.

2.That the court recognize the conviction of Mr. X was not a fair trial as enshrined in the Virelian
constitution.

3.That the court should reverse the impugned judgement of HC and hereby decline the death
penalty of Mr. X.

4.That the court abolish the death penalty in the Republic of Virelia.

5.That the court grants any further relief that it deems just & appropriate in the circumstances.

(Councils on behalf of the Petitioner)

Place:
Date:

P a g e 34 | 34
-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER