TABLE OF CONTENTS

 LIST OF ABREVATIONS………………………………………………………………………………..

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..

 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..

 ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………………………

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………..

 PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….

1
 LIST OF ABREVATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Art.s Articles

Cr Criminal

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

CriLJ Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

U/S Under Section

2
No. Number

No.s Numbers

Ors. Others

P Para

Pvt. Private

Rs Rupees

Sec Section

Sec.s Sections

SLP Special Leave Petition

SCC Supreme Court Cases

U/A Under Article

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

Yrs. Years

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

(A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

4
 BOOKS REFERRED

S.N MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE (21 ed. 2018).

RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (21 ed.

2017).

JAI JANAK, DEATH PENALTY (1 ed. 2005).

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, SUPREME COURT IN RAREST OF RARE CASES (2 ed.

2011).

NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUIONAL LAW OF INDIA (12 ed. 2015).

M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUITIONAL LAW (5 ed. 2003).

STATUTES

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

5
 WEBLINKS

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has approached this Hon’ble Court U/S 366 of the CrPC, 1973.1

Section 366:
‘366. Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of session for confirmation
1). When the court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted
to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High
Court.
2). The Court passing the sentence shall commit the convicted person to jail custody under a
warrant.

The Counsels for the Prosecution most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble High Court Judge.

1 The Code of Criminal Procedure, No 2 of 1974

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

1). Yug aged 6 years, the child of Mr. Sanchit Oberoi and Mrs Anika Oberoi is resident of
Sector 10, Chandigarh.

2). On June 14, 2017, Yug was found missing from busy market of Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Mr. Oberoi filed an FIR for the same at nearest Police Station on that very day.

3). A Cr case was registered on June16, 2017 and a letter seeking a ransom of rupees 2
crores was received on June 27, 2017 which confirmed the kidnapping of Yug.

4). On July 04, 2017 Sanchit Oberoi, father of Yug received second ransom letter through
post, information of which was given to the Investigating Officer.

5). The last ransom call was received in which the amount was increased to rupees 5 crores
and repeated threat to kill Yug was given, but Mr. Oberoi refused to pay the same.

6). The police started the investigation and was unable to grab the offender. The case was
later on transferred to the State CID. The agency took over the specimen handwriting of
suspects and ransom letters and sent the same to the forensic lab. The investigation
continued and many persons were taken as witnesses on the basis of mobile phone
locations.

The Trap and Interrogation

7). On January 29, 2018, some municipal employees found a Skelton while cleaning the
tank. On conducting the DNA test, the remains matched with that of Yug’s parents.

8). Three persons, Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Singh were arrested on
suspicion. As the investigating agency recovered half written letters from the resident of
accused Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Singh where they were living as
paying guests.

9). The said three accused, who were neighbour to the victim’s family, were also in
constant touch with Yug’s family members during the investigations.

8
10). Gurinder Verma at the time of commission of conspiracy was not present in
Chandigarh, but call records confirmed frequent and long calls between the three accused.

11). According to Post-mortem report conducted it was confirmed that the skeleton was of
the same child Yug who was earlier kidnapped from the market.

12). He was thrown alive in the said water tank and died of drowning. The investigation
revealed that Yug was tortured by forcing him to drink alcohol and beaten severely.

The Proceedings

13). On the basis of the facts police filed a challan in the court of learned CJM Chandigarh.

14). The court found a prima facie case for commission of offense punishable under 364-A
read with 120B, 347 read with 120B, 302 read with 120B, 201 and 202 read with 120B of
IPC.

15). The case was transferred to the court of Hon’ble District and Session Judge for want of
jurisdiction.

16). On examining the witnesses, phone details, handwriting specimen and other evidences,
all the three accused were prosecuted for murder of Yug.

9
 Issues Raised

I.

Whether or not the appeal is maintainable in the eyes of Law or not?

II.

Whether or not Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Singh are rightly
implicated for kidnapping of Yug?

III.

Whether or not all are rightly prosecuted and sentenced for the murder?

IV.

Whether or not the above mentioned case falls within the parameters of the rarest
of rare case?

V.

Is giving death penalty justified in this case?

10
 Summary of Arguments

1). Whether or not the appeal is maintainable in the eyes of Law?

2). Whether or not Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Singh are rightly
implicated for kidnapping of Yug?

3). Whether or not all are rightly prosecuted and sentenced for the murder?

4). Whether or not the above mentioned case falls within the parameters of the rarest
of rare cases?

11
5). Is giving death penalty justified in this case?

12
13
 Arguments Advanced

1). Whether or not the appeal is maintainable in the eyes of Law?

The appeal to this Hon’ble High Court is maintainable in the eyes of law under section
374(2) of CrPc 1973.

‘Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same
trial], may appeal to the High Court.’2

While disposing of appeals from the sentences of the Session Court under this section the
High Court should specify the reasons for rejection of appeal and should not reject it
summarily. This will enable the Supreme Court to know the view of the High Court if the
the appellant moves to the Supreme Court in appeal.

When the view taken by Session Judge was found by the High Court to be manifestly
wrong and that it led to miscarriage of justice, High Court was entitled to set aside the
acquittal.3

2). Whether or not Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Singh are rightly
implicated for kidnapping of Yug?

The counsels on behalf of the respondents humbly submit that the judgement passed by the
Sessions Court is appropriate and the conviction of the accused under Section 364A of IPC
passed by the Session Court is correct and as per the demands of justice.

2 The Code of Criminal Procedure, No 2 of 1974

3 Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1989 Cr LJ 1460: AIR 1989 SC 1445

14
Section 364A. Kidnapping for ranson, etc:

‘Whoever kidnaps of abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping
or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives
rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or cause
hurt or death to such person in order to compel the government or[any foreign state or
international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from
doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life,
and shall also be liable to fine.]

 The SC in Mulla & another v. State of U.P4, held that considering the alarming rise
in kidnapping of young children for ransom, the legislature in its wisdom provided
stringent sentence of death for the offence under Section 364-A. It maybe be noted
that even before this case the SC in Henry Westmuller Roberrts v. Sate of Assam,5
had observed that death sentence should be awarded in a case of kidnapping involving
murder based on circumstantial evidence.

For a person to be convicted under the offence of Kidnapping for ransom the following
ingredients should be satisfied:

1). The accused kidnapped or abducted a person

2). The kidnapped or abducted person was kept under detention after his kidnapping or
abduction, as the case maybe;

3). The kidnapping or abduction must have been done with the intent of ransom

 All the 3 accused were known to the child which is the reason that it was very easy
for them to take away the child with them. There were CCTV footages in which it
could be very clearly seen that the child was seen going with them. Along with them
there were fellow shopkeepers who knew the child and also saw him go with the
accused’s. The shopkeeper’s statements have been recorded as eyewitnesses the case.

4 A.I.R 2010 S.C 942

5 (1985) 3 S.C.C. 291.

15
  The accused had forcefully kept the child in their custody. They tortured him and
even forced a child who is a minor and of unsound mind to forcefully consume
alcohol which is not ethically correct.

 It has also been proven from the handwriting specimens that the letters which were
recovered from the accused’s house and the letters which were sent from time to time
to demand ransom money had the same handwriting which were of the 3 accused.

 All the three accused were constantly in touch with the family and were trying to help
find the child to avoid suspicion.

 Their call records confirmed frequent and long calls between the three accused and
that all the three accused were equally involved in the conspiracy. The police holds
the proper records of the same.

All the above facts prove that all the 3 accused are guilty of kidnapping for ransom for
the deceased and they should be punished with death punishment.

3). Whether or not all are rightly prosecuted and sentenced for the murder?

The counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submit that the judgement passed by The
Sessions Court is appropriate and the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the
IPC read with Section 120B is correct as the demands of justice.

Section 302. Punishment for Murder:

‘Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and
shall also be liable to fine.’

To convict any accused under the aforementioned section, the requirements of Section 300
of IPC needs to be fulfilled.

Section 300. Murder:

‘Except in the case thereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

16
(Secondly)- If it is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or

(Thirdly)- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or

(Fourthly)- If the person committing the act knows that is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury aforesaid.’

 The instant case comes under purview of clause 4th of this section since the
accused’s have committed the act which they knew to be imminently dangerous that
it would, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death and committed it without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing such
death or injury as aforesaid. The accused’s committed the murder of the deceased
by drowning him alive in water tank. They had the knowledge that this act is
imminently dangerous to the extent that in all human probabilities it would lead to
his death. Moreover, they did not have any excuse for undertaking such a risk that it
was necessary for him to do such an act at the very particular moment.
 Moreover, all the evidences (both documentary and oral) presented in the trial court
have sufficiently proved the guilt of all the accused’s. Therefore, the act committed
by the accused was so grave and heinous in nature that their conviction under
section 302 is appropriate and required in order to deliver justice to the deceased.

Section 120B Proved:

Trial court has convicted the accused persons 1,2 and 3 U/S 120B of IPC for Cr Conspiracy
with each other.

Section 120B. Punishment of Cr conspiracy:

‘(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with

death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall. Where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such
a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

17
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or both.]’

The offence of Cr Conspiracy has been defined U/S 120(A) IPC

Section 120A. Definition of Cr Conspiracy:

‘When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -

(1) an illegal Act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a

criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties
to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation. – It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

 In Abdul Kadar v. State,6 it was held by the court that this section will be applied to
those who are members of the conspiracy during its continuance. Conspiracy is
continuing event offence and whoever is a party to the conspiracy during the
period for which he is charged is liable under this section.
 It was held that the charges of conspiracy were framed on the basis of half written
ransom letters recovered in the search of the premises of the accused. It was also
confirmed by the handwriting experts that the letters which the deceased’s family
received bore the same handwriting as that of the accused.
 It is also to be brought to the notice of the court that the 1 st accused pleaded that
he should be let gone off because he was not in the city and was attending his
brother’s wedding but it was found out that the kidnapping took place on June 14,
2017 and his brother’s wedding was on June 20,2017.

6 (1963) 65 Bom. L.R. 864

18
4). Whether or not the above mentioned case falls within the parameters of the rarest
of rare cases?

There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare. In a Cr trial, the nature and gravity of the
crime are taken into consideration for determining a suitable punishment. The Court shall be
deemed to have failed in discharging its duty if proportionate punishment has not been
awarded for those crimes which are committed not only against one particular individual but
can be said to have been committed against the society at large.
Therefore, weight age is given to the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been
perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond
to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal”.7 That is to say, the existence of such
extraordinary grounds under which the Court has no other resort than to effect a capital
punishment for the survival of the State as well as society.8

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty can be awarded only in special cases. It
constitutes an exceptional punishment which will be imposed only with special reason and
must be properly conferred by the High Court.9

In Rajendra Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh,10 Justice Krishna Iyer observed that “If the
murderous operation of a die-hard criminal jeopardises social security in a persistent, planned
and perilous fashion then his enjoyment of fundamental rights may be rightly annihilated”11

The five Judge Bench in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab12 laid down the caveat of rarest of
rare. Justice R Sarkaria speaking for the majority held that for convicts of murder, the general
rule is life imprisonment of whose death penalty is an exception. An enduring and predominant
concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through law’s

7
Rajvi alias Ram Chandra v. The State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175
8
Rajjendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 3 SCC 646
9
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621
10
(1979) 3 SCC 646
11
Dr Jai Raj Janak, Death Penalty(Regency Publications, New Delhi, 2005) at Page no: 120
12
AIR 1980 SC 898

19
instrumentality. “That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative
option is unquestionably foreclosed.”

The principle of ‘rarest of rare’ can be divided into parts: -

1). Aggravating circumstances

2). Mitigating circumstances

It can be said that the case can be termed as rarest of rare because under this case the the
aggravating circumstances available are very strong and valid on the basis of which the the
Judge may on his will impose death sentence.

Aggravating Circumstances:

(i) extremely brutal, diabolic and cruel act;

(ii) victim being six years was a minor, of unsound mind and helpless;
(iii) no provocation because the accused was in a dominating position;

In Machhi Singh v State of Punjab13, a 3-Judge Bench observed that in rarest of the rare cases
when collective conscience of the community is shocked to such an extent that it expects
infliction of the death penalty from the holders of the judicial power, the Court said that the
community may entertain such a sentiment in the following circumstances:-

 The manner of the commission of the offence: The manner in which the accused
tortured the deceased was very cruel and inhuman. They forced him to consume
alcohol against his will for days. When they realised that the family is not ready to pay
the ransom amount, they decided to drown the child alive in a water tank.

13
AIR 1983 SC 957: (1983) 3 SCC 470: (1983) 3 SCR 413: 1983 (2) Crimes 268.

20
  The motive for the commission of the offence: The main motive of the accused was
to extract hefty ransom money from the family of the deceased which itself is a
punishable offence along with it when they realised that the family is not willing to
pay the ransom money instead of letting the deceased go, they killed him because the
child recognised the offenders as they were neighbours if he had been let free he would
have told everyone their identity.
 The societal impact of the offence on the whole: This offence has left a very negative
impact on the society as to how an innocent minor child was killed in such an inhuman
child.
 Facts and circumstances leading to the offence: The skeleton of the deceased was
found by municipal employees in the water tank while cleaning and the DNA reports
showed that the skeleton was that of the deceased(Yug).
 Magnitude of crime:
 The personality of the victim of the offence: The victim was a 6 year minor child who
was a special child.

5). Is giving death penalty justified in this case?

The death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a
punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone is punished in this manner is a
death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution. 14

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 awards death sentence as a punishment for various offenses.
Some of these capital offences under the IPC are punishment for criminal conspiracy
(Section 120B), murder (Section 302), waging or attempting to wage war against the
Government of India (Section 121), abetment of mutiny (Section 132), dacoity with murder
(Section 396) and others. Apart from this, there are provisions for the death penalty in
various legislations like the NDPS Act, anti-terrorism laws etc.

14
< https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/death-penalty-an-overview-of-indian-cases/>

21
From the above discussion it can be held that in the rarest of the rare cases, death sentence
ought to be awarded. In the case of Mofil Khan v. State of Jharkhand,15 in which the Supreme
Court had opined that the death sentence must be awarded where the victims were innocent
children and helpless women, especially when the crime was committed in the cruellest and
inhumane manner which was extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting.

15 (2015) 1 SCC 67

22
 Prayer

In: Gurinder Verma, Virender Kumar and Nishant Signh

v.

State

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before the Hon’ble Court to adjudge and
declare:

Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of the facts of the case
and justice, equity and good conscience.

23