Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

1st CVC MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

INTRODUCTION

REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN HAS INCREASED OVER THE YEARS, BUT DESPITE


THE STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES THAT THEY ARE OFTEN SUBJECTED TO, WE
STILL LIVE IN A PATRIARCAL SOCIETY WHERE THE MINDSET FOR A VICTIM OF
RAPE IS NOT THAT HER DIGNITY HAS BEEN VIOLATED BUT THE FAMILY
HONOUR HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.

WHILE WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS OVER THESE YEARS, IT IS PERHAPS TIME


FOR US TO INTROSPECT AS TO WHY VOILENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN ARE
NOT ABATING, THERE MUST BE AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE SAFE SPACES, SO
THAT WOMEN CAN BE EQUAL PARTICIPANTS IN PUBLIC LIFE.

Summary of Issues
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR
THE OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 300 IPC ?

1.1 WHETHER THE INJURIES INFLICTED WERE SUFFICIENT IN


ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH ?

1.2 WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED


FOR CAUSING DISAPPEARCENE OF EVIDENCE?

2. Whether the prosecution proves that accused herein, along


with juvenile-in-conflict-with-law, constituting a group of more
than one person, in furtherance of common intention
committed forcible sexual intercourse withprosecutrix and ther
eby committed an offencepunishable under Section 376(D) of I.
P.C?
2.1 ? WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS HAVE DONE THE ACT IN
FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION?

2.2 WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS GUILTY OF


FORMING UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON
OBJECT?

2.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS COMMITTED THE FORCIBLE


SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH PROSECUTERIX AND COMMITED THE
OFFENCE OF RAPE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(D) IPC.?

2.4 WHETHER IN CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEATH


SHOULD BE AWARDED?

3. WHETHER THE JUVENILITY WILL DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF


OFFENCE COMMITTED?

Issues in Detail

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED FOR


THE OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 300 IPC?
IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS STATED THAT THE ACCUSED
MURDERED THE VICTIM WITH SUFFICIENT INTENTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
ACT, ALSO THE VICTIM WAS TREATED INHUMANELY AND GORTESQUELY AND
WAS SUBJECTED TO MULTIPLE INJURIES WHICH CONSEQUENTLY RESULTED IN
HER DEATH AS PER THE MEDICAL REPORTS .

1.1 WHETHER THE INJURIES INFLICTED WERE SUFFICIENT IN


ORDINARY COURSE OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH ?
IN THE CASE IN HAND THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS CHOKING TO
DEATH WHICH IS SUFFICENT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH OF THE VICTIM AND ALSO SHE WAS
SUBJECTED TO MULTIPLE INJURIES AND THE GRAVITY OF
OFFENCE WAS SO GRAVE THAT IN ORDINARY COURSE OF
NATURE IT RESULTED IN DEATH OF THE VICTIM

IN VIRSA SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB , THE PROSECTION HAS TO


PROVE FOLLOWING FACTS BEFORE IT CAN BRING A CASE U/S
300 IPC :
1. THE BODILY INJURY IS PRESENT .
2. NATURE OF INJURY MUST BE PROVED
3. IF THE INJURY IS SUFFICINET TO CAUSE DEATH( PURELY
INFRENETIAL)

FROM THE ABOVE CASE IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE


ACCUSED HAS CASUED THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM .

It is settled law that criminal conspiracy is always hatched in privacy or


secrecy .it is rarely possible to adduce concrete evidence ,but on
circumstantial evidence and conduct of the accused .

Circumstances, conduct and overacts of the


accused person stated hereinabove clearly
and unequivocally establish that accused persons also
criminally intimidate the victim pursuant to the said
conspiracy and hence they are also liable to be held guilty
under section 201 IPC read with section 120-B IPC.

1.2 WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED


FOR CAUSING DISAPPEARCENE OF EVIDENCE ?

IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS CLEARLY STATED IN THE FACTS THAT AFTER COMMISIONIG OF
OFFENCE ACCUSED CASUSED THE DISAPPEARENE OF EVIDENC IN ORDER TO SAVE MURARI YADAV OF
HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
CAUSING DISAPPRENCE OR DESTROYING THE EVIDENCE OR GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN
THE OFFENDER FROM LEAGL PUNISHMENT IS AN OFFENCE U/S 201 IPC.

2. Whether the prosecution proves that accused herein, along with


juvenile-in-conflict-with-law, constituting a group of more than
oneperson, in furtherance of common intention
committed forcible sexual intercourse withprosecutrix and thereby com
mitted an offencepunishable under Section 376(D) of I.P.C?

2.1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS HAVE DONE THE ACT IN


FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION ?

IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THE JOINT AND COMMON INTENTION


OF ALL TO CRIMINALLY INTIMIDATE THE VICTIM AND THE SAME WAS
PRE-MEDITATED AND DESIGEND IN THE MINDS OF EVERY ACCUSED
THAT TO STOP HER FROM PUBLISING AND EXPOSING ILEGAL
ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE CITY .

ALSO, THE ACT OF MURDER AS WELL AS OF RAPE WAS COMMITED IN


FURTHERNACE OF THE COMMON INTENTION OF ALL IN WHICH
PARTICIPATION IN SOME MANNER OR THE OTHER WAS PRESENT

GENERALLY COMMON INTENTION MUST BE SHOWN TO BE


PREMEDITATED . HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE MAY BE
INCIDENTS IN WHICH COMMON INTENTON MAY DEVEELOP ON THE
SPOT , AFTER THE OFFENDERS HAVE GATHERED . PROOF OF SUCH
INTENTION MUST NEED TO BE GLEANED FROM THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCAIL EVIDENCES AS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

IN BARENDRA KUMAR GHOSH V EMPEROR


IT WAS HELD THAT;
IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ACCUSED MUST BE PRESENT AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME AND CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT “ THEY
ALSO SERVE WHO ONLY STAND AND WAIT’ AND THE PRESNET
ACCUSED LAKHAN’S STATEMENT TO POLICE CONTENDING HE WAS
GUARDING THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND TOOK NO PART IN ACT IS
TOTALLY NEGATED HERE.
2.2 WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS GUILTY OF
FORMING UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON
OBJECT ?

THERE WAS A MENTAL ELEMENT TO ACT CO-JOINTLY AND THE ACTUAL


PARTICIPATION IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER IN COMMISION OF COMMON
INTENTION BECAUSE TO STOP THE VICTIM EVERYONE WAS SO
CONSTITUTED THAT EACH ACCUSED HAS DESIGNED THE CRIME TO
ACHIEVE THE COMMON OBJECT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO COMMON
INTENTION.ACCUSED ARE THUS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER
SECTION 149 IPC.

2.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS COMMITTED THE


FORCIBLE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH PROSECUTERIX AND COMMITED
THE OFFENCE OF RAPE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(D) IPC.?

IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPORTS OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF VICTIM


THAT SHE WAS SUBJETED TO MULTIPLE INJURUIES AND ALSO WAS RAPED
MULTIPLE TIMES AND MURDERED BRUTALLY WHICH CLEARLY
DISPLAYED DEPRAVED MENTALITY AND DEFENCELESS UNPROTECTED
STATE OF THE VICTIM .

VICTIM WAS NOT ONLY RAPED BUT WAS MURDERD IN A DIABOLIC


MANNER, THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED IS DEPLORABLE , BOTH LEGALLY
AND MORALLY . IT IS TIME FOR THE REALIZATION THAT CERTAIN
CATEGORY OF SEXUALLY DEPRAVED BEHAVIOUR IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE IN THE INDIAN SOCIO-LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH SEEKS TO
PROTECT CHASTITY THE FIRST VIRTUE OF A WOMAN AND SUCH
BEHAVIOUR CAN PROVETO BE COSTLY AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE
PRESENT CASE .

ALSO IT IS CLEARLY WITNESSED BY NEIGHBOURS OF THE VICTIM WHO


IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED AND CCTV FOOTAGE WHICH SHOWS
INVOLVEMENT OF THE ACCUSED .

IN CASE OF STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V MOHAMMAD ASHFAQ, OFTEN


KNOWN AS SHANTI MILLS RAPE CASE IN WHICH COURT HELD THAT;

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE YOUNG AGE OF THE ACCUSED, THEIR


SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND NON EXISTING CHANCES OF THEIR
REFORMATION , PALE INTO LIGHT OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES , A
SUBSTANTIVE AND STERN SENTENCE IS TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE
CONVICT SO THAT IT IS NOT ONLY ON COMMENSURATION WITH THE
GRAVITY BUT ALSO SERVES AS EXAMPLE FOR THE OTHERS,

3.1 WHETHER IN CASES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DEATH


SHOULD BE AWARDED?

IN CASE OF {RAMESHBHAI CHANDARBHAI RATHOD V STATE OF


GUJARAT}

IT WAS HELD THAT;

IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO BE OF AN


UNIMPEACHABLE CHARACTER IN ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED, THAT FORMS FORMATION OF CONVICTION. IN THE PRESENT
CASE, THE EVIDENCES ARE TOTALLY BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES .SO THE
CULABILTY OF THE ACCUSED STANDS VALID HERE.

4. WHETHER THE JUVENILITY WILL DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF


OFFENCE COMMITTED ?

IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ONE ANKIT ( ACCUSED )


WHO IS OF AGE 16.5 YEARS IN CONFLICT WITH LAW AND IT IS THE
CONTENTION OF THE DEFENCE TO AWARD LESSER SENTENCE TO HIM.

The annual figures released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has revealed the
following ground realities:
1. In the year 2012, police in India charged 27,936 juveniles for alleged involvement in
serious crimes including banditry, murder, and rape and rioting. According to NCRB
data, among those who faced JJB (Juvenile Justice Boards) in 2012, two-thirds
(66.6%) were between the age group of 16 and 18 years WHICH CLEARLY DEPICTS
THE INTENTION TO COMMITT CRIMES.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short “JJ Act,
2015”) has been criticised for incorporating Section 15[6] and Section 18(3)[7]. It lays down
that if the minor has completed or is above sixteen years and is involved in a heinous crime
then on the report of preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Board, the case can be trialed
in the Children’s Court and the minors will be treated as adults and would be subjected to
the criminal procedure.

IN THE CASE IN HAND WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THE FORMATION OF SUFFICENT


INTENTION TO COMMIT SUCH GRAVE AND INHUMANE CRIME AGAINST THE VICTIM
WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

. In Ram Prasad Sahu v. State of Bihar[15], the Supreme Court held that a child offender can
be convicted of committing rape[16] and an attempt to commit rape. Where a child is not
eligible to be punished but is capable of committing rape or murder it is against the principle
of justice and principle of proportionality of punishment if he is given blanket immunity. It
is a well-established medical psychological fact that the level of understanding of a 16-year-
old was on a par with that of adults

SO IN THE LIGHTS OF FACTS AND GROUNDS PRODUCED IT IS IN THE OPINION OF


PROSECUTION TO HOLD THE MINOR GUILTY OF COMMITTING RAPE AND MURDERS AND
OTHER CHARGES RESPECTIVELY.

1. CULPABILITY OF 5 ACCUSED MEN – ALL THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR THE
OFFENCES OF RAPE AND MURDER EXCEPT THE JUVELINE WHO MUST BE SENT TO
JJB FOR SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION WHETHER HE IS TO BE
TREATED UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURES OR NOT.
ALL ACCUSED PERSONS WHO HAVE INTENDED TO STOP THE VICTIM FROM
PUBLISHING BY ILLEGAL ACTS REFLECTS THEIR ILL MOTIVES AND ALL OF THEM
IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SOCIO- ECOMONIC CONDITIONS IS TO BE HELD LIABLE
FOR THE OFFENCES STATED ABOVE. CORROBORATING EVIDENCES AND CCTV
FOOTAGE ALSO PROVIDES FOR A SUBATANTIAL RATIONALE TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED PERSONS, THE CONVICTION DOES NOT DESERVES ANY LENIENCY.

2. CHARGES- ALL OF ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR;


1. MURDER SEC 300(3) READ WITH SETION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
2. CAUSING DISAPPEARENCE OF EVIDENCE- SEC 201 IPC.
3. RAPE – SEC 376(D) IPC
4. CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION – UNDER SEC 506(B)
5. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY- SEC 120-B READ WITH
SEC 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

ALSO, VICTIM UNDER SEC 357-A CR.PC IS TO BE PROVIDED COMPENSATION


UNDER VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME AND STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY IS
DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.

3. NATURE OF PUNISHMENT – ACCUSED PERSONS IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND


EVIDENCES ARE LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER SEC 300 READ WITH SEC
376(D) OF IPC AND SENTENCED FOR DEATH .
CONVICTION OF ALL ACCUSED IS UPHLED .