UWSL, KARNAVATI UNIVERSITY - INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2019
MOOT PROPOSITION

1. On 12.01.2018 Chintu a boy aged 11 years, made an allegation of sexual

abuse against his tutor Mr. Rambo (India citizen) who used to take his

private classes for Mathematics.

2. On 12.01.2018, upon returning from his tuition, Chintu who was then

crying loudly alleged that between 6:00 – 7:00 pm Mr. Rambo had

inserted a pencil in his anus. The said allegation was narrated by Chintu

to his parents. Upon hearing of the said incident, Chintu’s parents rushed

to Mr. Rambo’s house, situated 300 mts from their residence. Upon

arriving at Mr. Rambo’s house, they discovered that he was putting away

a blackboard containing some Mathematics problems. Thereafter,

Chintu’s parents started thrashing Mr. Rambo. Upon hearing the

commotion, police arrived at the scene of crime and took away Mr.

Rambo, Chintu’s parents and Chintu to the Police station.

3. Thereafter the Police recorded the statements of Chintu’s parents, Mr.

Hari and Mr. Raja (who had seen Chintu leave Mr. Rambo’s house crying)

and Chintu. Thereafter on the same day an FIR was registered against Mr.

Rambo under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offenses Act, 2012 (“POCSO, 2012”) and Section 377 r/w Section 511 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC, 1860”) and Mr. Rambo was taken into

custody and has since been in jail.

Disclaimer - The instant moot proposition is a work of fiction, artificial and created only for academic
purposes. Names, characters, businesses, places, events, locales, and incidents are either the products
of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or
dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
4. Thereafter Chintu’s medical examination was conducted at SUPERMAN

MEDICAL HOSPITAL. Upon Chintu’s medical examination the doctor

issued a Medicolegal Certificate being MLC no. 98765/18 wherein he

noted “THERE ARE NO SIGNS WHICH SUGGESTS INSERTION OF PENIS

OR PENIS LIKE OBJECT INTO ANAL CAVITY. CERTAIN REDDISHNESS

OBSERVED AROUND THE ANAL CAVITY”.

5. The Prosecuting Agency conducted an investigation and recorded

statements of Chintu, his mother, father, Mr. Raja and Mr. Hari under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC, 1973”).

Further Chintu’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC, 1973 was

recorded wherein he narrated the abovementioned incident. Thereafter

Chargesheet (Final Report under Section 173 of CrPC, 1973) dated

10.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 377 and Section

511 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was filed in the Court

of the Ld. Additional Session Judge, Delhi (“Ld. ASJ”).

6. The Ld. ASJ was pleased to take cognizance of the offences as alleged

within the said Final Report. Mr. Rambo pleaded not guilty and the Ld.

ASJ proceeded to frame charges against Mr. Rambo under Section 6 read

with Section 5 of the POCSO, 2012 and under Section 377 and Section

511 of the IPC.

7. Mr. Rambo filed a bail application alongwith an application requesting

the Prosecuting Agency to conduct the Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain

 Mapping Test in order to rebut the presumption against himself. The Ld.

ASJ relying upon Section 29 read with Section 30 of POCSO, 2012

rejected the bail application filed by Mr. Rambo. The Ld. ASJ dismissed

the application under Section 173(8) CrPC, 1973 seeking that his

Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain Mapping Test be conducted stating that

the same was inadmissible.

8. During the trial, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses namely,

PW 1 Chintu’s mother (narrated that Chintu came home crying and

narrated the alleged incident), PW 2 Chintu’s father (narrated that Chintu

came home crying and narrated the alleged incident), PW3 Chintu

(narrated the alleged incident), PW 4 Hari (narrated that Chintu left

home crying), PW 5 Raja (narrated that Chintu left home crying), PW 6

the Doctor (exhibited the Medicolegal Report) and PW 7 the Investigating

Officer (narrated the entire process of investigation and exhibited all

arrest memos, seizure memos, site plan etc) was recorded. It may be

noted, that since Chintu was in the private tuition, only he narrated the

alleged incident in his evidence, all the other witnesses only attested to

his conduct upon him leaving Mr. Rambo’s house.

9. During cross-examination, Chintu narrated that he had failed to do his

homework as given by Mr. Rambo on 11.01.2018. Chintu’s parents

denied having any altercation with Mr. Rambo regarding fees. The fees
 register seized during the investigation from Mr. Rambo’s house

indicates that Chintu’s parents have not paid fees for the last five months.

10. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, Mr. Rambo stated

that he did not do the alleged act, and that he had been falsely accused of

the said offence on account of the altercation between Mr. Rambo and

Chintu’s parents regarding his fees, and that he had slapped Chintu as he

had not done the homework given to him on 11.01.2018.

11. Thereafter realizing that on account of the presumption under Section 29

read with Section 30 it would be impossible to prove the negative that

the alleged act had never taken place, Mr. Rambo approached the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

challenging the vires of Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO, 2012.

Further, in alternative Mr. Rambo prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India to allow him to conduct a Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain

Mapping Test in order to prove his innocence.

12. On the first date of hearing i.e. 18.02.2019 notice was issued to the Union

of India and eight week time was granted for completion of pleadings.

Pursuant to the completion of pleadings on 20.04.2019 parties were

heard by the Hon’ble Court and the matter is put up for final arguments

from 03.09.2019 to 05.09.2019. Further, the parties are required to

provide written submissions in support of their arguments on the

following issues:
a. Whether Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO, 2012 are in

violation of fundamental rights of Mr. Rambo?

b. In alternative whether Mr. Rambo can be permitted to

conduct a voluntary Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain

Mapping Test in order to prove his innocence?