6 TH JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PDF

Preview

Summary

16TH JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. /2018 IN THE MATTER OF – KAMLES MODI- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPELLANT V. STATE OF MAHANANDA- - - - - - - - ...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

6 TH JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA crypto king

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Juvenile just ice Syst em Select ed Judgement s.pdf Nawaz Haque LAW OF CRIMES PROJECT 7 kaynat ali Final Memo Challengers gaurav prakash

16TH JUSTA CAUSA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.

/2018

IN THE MATTER OF – KAMLES MODI- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF MAHANANDA- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESPONDENT

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

I

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ...................................................................................................... III INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... IV STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................... IX STATEMENT OF FACT ............................................................................................................... X ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................................ XI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................... XII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1 [1]. THE INSTANT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ...................................................................................................... 1 [1.1]. GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE APPELLANT. ....................................... 1 A. FOUNDATIONAL FACT CHILDREN

FORM

UNDER

PRESUMPTION

SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) IS

PROVIDED BY

PROTECTION

OF

NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT............................................................................................................................. 2

B. FINDINGS OF

THE HIGH COURT AND SESSIONS COURT ARE PERVERSE IN NATURE ..... 3

C. CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE COURTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH. ......................... 4 [2]. THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT AND SESSIONS COURT ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. .................................................................................................................... 5

[2.1]THE SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE

IS NOT A RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO

DETERMINE THE AGE OF THE VICTIM ............................................................................. 5 A. THE SESSIONS

COURT AND

HIGH

COURT WERE UNJUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE

SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE FOR DETERMINING THE AGE OF THE VICTIM. ............... 5 B. SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE RULES,2007

.................................................................................................................... 7

[2.2] THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE ARE NOT RELIABLE IN THE PRESENT MATTER ................. 7 A. NON-EXAMINATION OF RADIOLOGIST IS FATAL TO PROSECUTION CASE.................... 8 A.1. Little reliance has to be placed on age estimated from singular factor. ............ 8 A.2. Status of ossification of bones is not known. ...................................................... 8

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

II

Table of Contents

A.3. Ossification test gives range of age instead of exact age. .................................. 9 B. NON-EXAMINATION

OF

DOCTOR

WHO CONDUCTED

POST MORTEM

RENDERS THE

RESPONDENT’S CASE IMPROBABLE. ................................................................................ 9 B.1 Eruption of Third Molar Tooth............................................................................ 9 B.2 Secondary Sexual Characters are well developed. ........................................... 10 C. ORAL EVIDENCE OF MOTHER WILL PREVAIL OVER MEDICAL EVIDENCE. ................ 10 D. DNA IS NOT CONCLUSIVE TO PROVE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED. ................................ 11 [2.3] INVESTIGATION IS FAULTY IN THE PRESENT MATTER ........................................... 12 [3]. OFFENCE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED IN THE PRESENT CASE ........................................ 13 [3.1] THE ACT WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ASSAULT .................................................. 13 [3.2]THE VICTIM WAS IN A CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH APPELLANT ................ 14 PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ XIII

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

III

Table of Abbreviation TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ¶

Paragraph

§

Section

&

And

AIR

All India Reporter

Anr.

Another

Art.

Article

CA

Criminal Appeal

Cr.LJ

Criminal Law Journal

Cr. PC

Code of Criminal Procedure

DW

Defence Witness

FIR

First Information Report

HC

High Court

IPC

Indian Penal Code

IEA

Indian Evidence Act

NCT

National Capital Territory

Ori.

Orissa

Ors

Others

Pat

Patna

PW

Prosecution Witness

PMR

Post Mortem Report

POCSO

Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences

SA

South Africa

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SCR

Supreme Court Record

SCR

Supreme Court Record

UOI

Union of India

v.

Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

IV

Index of Authorities INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

S.N.

AUTHORITIES CITED

REFERRED AT

1.

Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal A.I.R.1963 S.C.1039.

4

2.

Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 S.C.C.750.

7

3.

Arunanchalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanatham, (1979) 2 S.C.C.297.

1

4.

Alamelu and Another v. State, (2011) 2 S.C.C.385.

4

5.

Bindu Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1989 Cri LJ NOC 107 (Pat.)

10

6.

Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Prohit, A.I.R. 1988 S.C.1786

4

7.

Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 S.C.C. 653.

2

8.

Champaben v. State of Gujarat, 2014 GLH (2) 76.

11

9.

Chathu v. Govindan Kutty, AIR 1958 Ker 121.

9

10.

Dharamveer v.State of U.P., (2010) 4 S.C.C.469.

4

11.

Dhobeidhar Naik v. State, 2001 I OLR 122.

8

12.

Dhobi Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1989 PL JR 867.

10

13.

Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1963 Supl. (1) S.C.R. 485.

2

14.

Dilbahar v. GNCT of Delhi, 185 (2011) DLT 598.

9

15.

Ganga kumar Srivastav v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2005 S.C.3123.

1

16.

Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 462.

1

17.

Indira Kaur v. Sheolal Kapoor, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1074.

3

18.

Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2448

7

19.

Javed Masood v.State of Rajasthan, (2010) 3 S.C.C. 538.

5

20.

Jodhbir Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 13 S.C.C. 591.

7

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

V

Index of Authorities 21.

Joginder Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 S.C.C.244.

13

22.

Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, (2012) 2 S.C.C.34.

12

23.

Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 S.C.C.311.

11

24.

Kartarey v. State, A.I.R. 1976 S.C.76.( ¶14)

4

25.

KathiRaning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 991. Kishoilal v. State, A.I.R.1957 Punj.78.

4

26.

11

27.

Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2013) 14 S.C.C. 637.

7

28.

Mahesh Chnader v. Delhi Admn., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1108.

3

29.

Mathai v. Geroge, (2016) 7 S.C.C.700.

1

30.

Mathura Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2002 (6) S.C.C.451.

1

31.

Mor Pal v. State, 198 (2013) DLT 487.

6

32.

Michael L v. Jonson Pumps Ltd., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 661 .

1

33.

Naresh Kumar v. State of HP, 2017 (8) SCALE 324.

3

34.

Nayudu Srihari v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 10 S.C.C. 393.

1

35.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr., (2008) 3 S.C.C. 279.

14

36.

Netram Baghel v. State of U.P. 2017 (1) ALJ 634.

8

37.

Nilamber Goudo v. State ,1982 Cri LJ (NOC) 172 (Ori).

15

38.

Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 S.C.C.417.

2

39.

Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) Supp.5 S.C.R. 59.

3

40.

Parhlad v.State of Haryana, (2015) 8 S.C.C.688.

8

41.

Premjinhai Bachubhai Khasiya v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2009 CRL.L.J. 2888.

11

42.

Pritam Singh v The State, A.I.R 1950 S.C.169.

1, 4

43.

R v. Watters, (2000) All E.R.1469.

11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

VI

Index of Authorities 44.

Ramlal v. Phagua, (2006) 1 S.C.C.168.

3

45.

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 S.C.C. 294.

11

46.

Ram Deo Chauhan v. State of Assam (2001) 5 S.C.C. 714.

6

47.

Ram Pratap & anr. v.State of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 Crimes 525 (Raj).

8

48.

Ramakant Rai v. MadanRai, (2003) 12 S.C.C. 395.

5

49.

Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 S.C.C. 606.

10

50.

Ramdayal v. State of M.P., (2008) 63 AIC 445 (M.P.).

12

51.

Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 S.C.C.584.

6

52.

S.R.Tewari v. Union of India, (2013) 6 S.C.C. 602.

3

53.

Sahid Hosain Biswas v. State of West Bengal, (2017) 3 CALLT 243 (HC).

2

54.

Sandeep Janaji Konde v. The State of Maharashtra, (2016) ALL MR (Cri.) 1433.

6

55.

Shahaj Ram v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 S.C.C.490.

12

56.

Shamsher Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 536.

4

57.

Shivanaryana Laxminarayna Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1980 S.C.439.

4

58.

Shyam v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1995 S.C.2169.

14

59.

Somgir alias Mangal Puri v. State, 1966 Cluj I.R 378.

10

60.

State of M.P. v. Azad Bharat Finance Co. & Anr., 1966 Supp S.C.R. 473

14

61.

State of M.P. v. Munna@Shambhoo, (2016) 1 S.C.C. 696.

6,9

62.

State of M.P. v. Niraj, MCRC No. 4022 of 2007. (M.P.HC).

10

63.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bachude, 1984 Cr LR (MP) 328.

10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

VII

Index of Authorities 64.

State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar LaxmanRao Wankhede, (2009) 15 S.C.C.200.

2

65.

State Of Punjab v.Jagir Singh, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 328.

12

66.

State of Punjab, (2002) 3 S.C.C.234.

1

67.

State of Rajasthan v. Kishanlal, A.I.R. 2002 S.C.2250.

15

68.

State of Uttarakhand v. Jairnail Singh, 2017 (13) SCALE 410.

12

69.

State of M.P. vs. Anoop Singh, (2015) 7 S.C.C.773.

7

70.

Sudhangshu Pramanick v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 3 CALLT 527 (HC).

8

71.

Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 293.

4

72.

Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 S.C.R.25.

2

73.

Tata Iron Steel Co v. Abdul Wahab, A.I.R. 1966 Pat.458.

6

74.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C.Sekar, (2009) 2 S.C.C.784.

5

75.

Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development ZACC 35. (South Africa). (2013) ZACC 35.

15

76.

Toransingh v. State of M.P. (2002) 6 S.C.C. 494.

4

77.

Umesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R.1982 S.C.1057.

6

78.

Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 2006 S.C.508.

11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

VIII

Index of Authorities BOOKS/ STATUTE REFERRED BOOKS  D. S. CHOPRA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (Thomson Reuters, 1st ed., 2014).  DR. CK PARIKH, TEXTBOOK

OF

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE, FORENSIC MEDICINE &

TOXICOLOGY, (CBS Publisher’s, 6th ed., 2014).  DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,( Lexis Nexis, 9th ed. 2014).  DURGA DAS BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Vol.-2, 5th ed., 2014).  GANGULY’S, CRIMINAL COURT PRACTICE & PROCEDURE (Eastern Law House, 10th ed., 2008).  J.P.MODI’S MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

AND

TOXICOLOGY (Lexis Nexis Butterworths

th

Wadhwa, 24 ed., 2011).  KD GAUR, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd. 15th ed., 2016).  LYON’S MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND TOXICOLOGY (Delhi Law House, 11th ed. 2008),  R.P.KATARIA, COMMENTARY ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012, (Orient Publishing Company 1st ed. 2014).  SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE & TRIAL (Eastern Book Company Vol-1,1st ed. 2011). STATUTE  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.  INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.  INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.  JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2000.  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FORM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012. CONSTITUTION  CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950. RULES JUVENILE JUSTICE RULES, 2007. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

IX

Statement of Jurisdiction STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT IN THE MATTER OF KAMLES MODI V. STATE OF MAHANANDA HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE 136

1

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE

1

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

X

Statement of Fact STATEMENT OF FACT

1. One Alia Kumar (deceased) allegedly aged 15 years jumped into a well situated at Peru on 23rd January 2013. Based on the same incident an accidental death report was registered at Baghdadi police station. 2. During the course of the investigation, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint at Baghdadi police station inter alia alleging that her daughter had been having an affair with Kamles Modi (Accused) owing to which she committed suicide. First Information Report (FIR) was registered under section 306 of IPC. Thereafter, the accused was arrested by the police. 3. During the investigation of the above complaint, it transpired that Alia was pregnant at the time of committing suicide. DNA was taken and test result shows that the deceased and the accused were biological parents of the foetus. As per the radiological ossification test, the age of the deceased was found to be 15 years. 4. Offences such as that stipulated under section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) R/w Section 5&6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) were also registered. The matter was committed before the learned Add. Sessions Judge for trial. Prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses. 5. After the conclusion of trial, Sessions Court of Erode concluded that prosecution failed to prove that accused had abetted Alia to commit suicide. The Sessions Court held that prosecution has proved that the accused committed the aggravated sexual assault upon Alia, who was aged 15 years at relevant time; as a result of which she became pregnant. With the above findings, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant. 6. Thus, the court held the appellant guilty under section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of INR 2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 3 months. 7. An Appeal was made before the Hon’ble High Court of Mahananda against the order and judgement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge from Sessions trial No. 111 of 2013 on 29th November 2014. 8. The Hon’ble High Court of Mahananda has upheld the order and judgment of the Sessions Court of Erode and now the matter is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

XI

Issues Raised ISSUES RAISED 1.

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 136 ...