Bil 15 A

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2023
(BHARAT INSTITUTE OF LAW)

TEAM CODE: BIL 15
BHARATH INSTITUTE OF LAW
(School of law)
1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Before
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KANDIGAI
BENCH AT KANDIGAI
In the appeal filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C)
Criminal appeal no. ___________/2023
In the matter of
VARSHINI APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF KANDIGAI RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF ON APPELLANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
PRAYER 22

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO ABBREVIATION EXPLANATION
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. BPC Bhoomi Penal Code
3. Cri Criminal
4. Cri C Criminal Cases
5. Cr.P.C Criminal procedure Code
6. HC High Court
7. HON'BLE Honourable
8. IPC Indian Penal Code
9. Ker Kerala
10. LUCK Lucknow
11. SC Supreme Court
12. SCC Supreme Court Cases
13. s/d Signature

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAWS
1. Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).
2. Om prakash AIR 1961 SC 1782.
3. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843
4. Abhiram mukhi v. State of Orissa, 1996 Cri LJ 2341.
5. Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharhand (2004) 12 SCC 220
6. Jodha v. State of Rajasthan 1994 SCC Online 161.
7. State v. Satish Sathyanarayana 2012 Cri LJ 379 (384)
8. Reena Devi v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2591
9. Commisioner of Police v. Narender Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1800.
10. Radhanath Rath v. Birja Prasad Ray 1992 Cr LJ 938
11. Harris M M 2005 Cri LJ 3314 (Ker).
12. Sanjay Madhukar Satam v. The state of Maharastra criminal appeal
no. 1121 of 2006
13. H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955 AIR 196.
STATUTES:
1. Section 66E, IT Act, 2000, Act of parliament, 2000.
2. Section 67, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
3. Section 67A, IT Act, 2000, Act of Parliament, 2000.
4. Section 499, IPC, 1860
5. Section 500, IPC, 1860
6. Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860
7. Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
8. Section 8 , The Indian Evidence Act, Act of Parliament, 1972

4
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in
3. https://www.manupatra.com
4. https://www.lexisnexis.com/academica
5. https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
6. https://www.scconline.inco.in
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. B.M. GANDHI'S- Indian Penal Code.

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal- Indian Penal code.
3. Law of Evidence – Dr. V. Krishnamachari.
4. Law of Crimes- Dr. S. R.Myneni.
5. Cr.P.C- S.N. MISRA

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant humbly approaches the Hon’ble HC under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as follows:
Cr.P.C 374:- Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Appeals from convictions
1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary

original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. 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 1 has been passed against him or
against any other person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High
Court.
3. Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), any person,-
a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or
Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or of
the second class, or
b. sentenced under section 325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has
been passed under section 360 by any magistrate, may appeal
to the court of sessions

6
STATEMENT OF FACT
BACK GROUND:
 The republic of Bhoomi is a peaceful country with the similar laws and customs as
applicable in the country of India. Mr. Velmurugan is an industrialist in the field
of textiles. Rajesh is the second child of Velmurugan hail from the district of
Aruvi in the state of Kandigai and Rajesh is a student of one of the prestigious
institution of Bhoomi.
 Varshini is the youngest daughter of Mr. Moorthy and he is a textile industrialist.
Though he is a tough competitor to Mr. Velmurugan, they have known each other
more than 30 years and their families share good bond.
 Varshini had completed her under graduation and she moved in with
Velmurugan's family with her family consent for pursue her higher education in
Aruvi district. During Varshini’s stay with Velmurugan's family, she fell in love
with Rajesh. She was obsessively with him. Her professor noticed her changed
behaviour. Considering her welfare Rajesh took her to a psychiatrist who
diagnosed her with early stage of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and
prescribed her medication. They both kept their relationship a secret form their
family. Varshini's friend Venba was aware of their relationship. Varshini and
Rajesh were in the physical relationship. When Moorthy arrived at Velmurugan's
incidence they caught varshini and Rajesh during their physical relationship their
relationship bought a shock to their family varshini was made to discontinue her
studies and was forced to move to her home town. She was agreed to marry a
groom of her parent's choice as she was left with no other options.
 After a couple of years Rajesh married Sangeetha. At the same time varshini got
divorced from her husband. On 08.08.2022 Venba and varshini met Rajesh and
Sangeetha. Varshini gifted a wall clock.
 Facts in issues: One week later, on 15.08.2022 Rajesh was on a business trip to
Mudichur and Sangeetha received a message from an anonymous number which
stated as: ‘Sangeetha your happiness will not last long, divorce your husband if
not your photos will be published on porn site’’. Sangeetha was shocked to see the
photos of her private life. On 18.08.2022 at about 9:30 PM Sangeetha received a
phone call a male voice repeated the words that ‘Sangeetha you might have

7
received your photos, divorce your husband if not you’ll die soon’. She intimated
him about the happenings.
 Sangeetha and Rajesh lodge a complaint at D3 Aruvi police station. The
investigating officer found that the call received by Sangeetha was from a public
telephone booth located at Mudichur. During the course of investigation the
couple found that they were expecting a baby. In order to celebrate Sangeetha’s
pregnancy on 21.08.2022 Rajesh arranged a small get-together which comprised
of their acquaintances including Varshini and Venba. When the party was about to
start everyone got notification of Sangeetha's intimate pictures. Everyone
including Rajesh tried to search Sangeetha and found Sangeetha has broken
bangles near the pool. He found her droned in the pool unconsciously she was
rescued by Rajesh and admitted in the hospital. A week later Sangeetha regained
her conscious when police came to collect the statement and she stated that
varshini called her near the pool and pushed her. On the investigation it was found
that the anonymous number from which the Sangeetha received the photographs
belonged to the Varshini but there was no clue about the phone call with the male
voice.
 Police arrested varshini and during the investigation she hysterically laughed and
made a statement ‘since Sangeetha passed away she need not share Rajesh with
anybody ‘unbeknownst the fact that Sangeetha was arrived. During the
investigation Varshini was enraged by the fact that Sangeetha was still alive and
yelled that ‘no Rajesh belonged to me and further stated that "it was me who fixed
the camera in wall clock and published Sangeetha intimate photos to ruin her
reputation, since Sangeetha's reputation is ruined Rajesh will come back to me".
Police recorded Varshini’s statement and they also found camera in Rajesh's bed
room. Varshini’s parent’s stated that she has been undergoing treatment for OCD
for couple of years. During the course trial at the session court varshini denied her
charges of attempt to murder, and accepted her obsessions towards Rajesh and
further added that she never had intention to harm Sangeetha as she is pregnant.
When she was further interrogated, she stated that in a drunken state Rajesh
expressed his feelings for her during the small get together and the statement was
confirmed by Venba. she admitted that her obsession for him trigged due to this
statement of Rajesh ‘I still love you as I did before two years ‘

8
ISSUES RAISED
1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF

307 BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506,

509 OF BPC ACT, 1860 AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF
IT ACT 2000?
3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

VALID AND LEGAL?

9
SUMMARY OF ARUGUMENTS
1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF
307 BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the session court had
wrongly interrupted that Varshini was guilty under the IPC sec 307(Attempt to
murder).since, Varshini has no mens rea and she doesn’t have a strong intension to do
so.
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506,

509 OF BPC ACT, 1860 AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF
IT ACT 2000?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the convictions made by

the session court under defamation and criminal intimidation, modesty of women and
under provisions of 66E, 67 and 67A of IT Act charged against varshini is said to be
invalid because of incomplete investigation by the police and under the concept of
benefit of doubt is given to the accused
3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

VALID AND LEGAL?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the punishment

imposed by the trial court is said to be invalid and illegal. The act or a crime done
by an unsound mind is not punishable under the Indian penal code and the
evidences produced against the Varshini are inadmissible.

10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER ATTEMPT TO
MURDER BEYOND ALL RESONABLE DOUBTS?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that Varshini (accused)
has not committed an offence u/s 307 BPC and shouldn’t be charged with
attempt to murder of Sangeetha.
For the purpose of constituting an attempt under this section there are two ingredients
required,
1. An evil intent or knowledge
2. An act done.
It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an

intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 1 To convict the accused under
this, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove both
 The act (actus reus)
 The intention (mens rea)2

1.1.Absence of the intention of the offender to cause death ( mens rea)
The essential ingredient to constitute an offence under this Section is having
the intention or knowledge. The intention or knowledge can be understood as
explained under Section 300 of the Code3. An act, though sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, it would not constitute an offence under this Section
if necessary intention or knowledge is lacking. 4 It is humbly submitted that Varshini
didn’t have intention or knowledge to commit murder of Sangeetha. It is evident that
such an intention or mens rea was never there. In order to prove the absence of
intention, the counsel for the appellant would request the bench to refer to the
statement given by the Varshini during trail at the Sessions Court. Varshini stated that
she never had an intention to harm Sangeetha as she is pregnant. Hence there is no
'mens rea' to kill her is present in this case.
1
Prakash Chandra yadav 2008 Cri 438 (440) (SC).
2
Om prakash AIR 1961 SC 1782.
3
Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR (1965) SC 843
4
Abhiram mukhi v. State of Orissa, 1996 Cri LJ 2341.
11
1.2.The act must be capable of causing death:
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the act alleged
against Varshini was incapable of causing death. To justify a conviction under
Sec 307 BPC, it is necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted.5 In the case of Jodha v. State of Rajasthan6, the court ruled
that in order for an offence to fall under the ambit of Sec 307, the injury has to
be caused on a vital part of the body. But in the present case, Sangeetha was
drowned in the pool and became unconscious. She gained conscious within a
week. No vital organ of Sangeetha is affected. Hence the allegation against
Varshini is not capable of causing death and so it cannot be fall under the ambit
of sec 307.
1.3.Absence of Actus Reus:

The second ingredient to constitute an offence under this section is causing an
injury which may cause death or Actus Reus. In the present case, Varshini does not do
any act. Varshini is arrested only on basis of the statement made by Sangeetha that
"Varshini called her into the Pool and pushed her into pool". According to section 101
of Indian Evidence Act 1872, the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges
another. Here in the present case, Sangeetha alleging varshini that varshini made an
attempt to kill her. Now, the burden of proof lies on Sangeetha.
7
In the case of State v. Satish Sathyanarayana it was held that where the
evidence of victim in proof of Assault and attempt made on her life was inconsistent
and self contradictory, conviction of the accused based only on the statement of
victim under the section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be improper.
Also in the case of Reena Devi v. State of Haryana8 , a case in the Punjab and
Haryana HC, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Jagmohan bansal,JJ, said that if the
statement of the victim is held to be gospel truth and Courts are bound to hold
someone guilty just because there is allegation by the victim , it would be travesty of
justice and there would be no need to conduct trail. Hence from the above findings,
mere statement of Sangeetha can't be considered as conclusive evidence to convict
5
Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharhand (2004) 12 SCC 220
6
Jodha v. State of Rajasthan 1994 SCC Online 161.
7
State v. Satish Sathyanarayana 2012 Cri LJ 379 (384)
8
Reena Devi v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC Online P&H 2591
12
varshini.
Other than this, no evidence has been submitted against Varshini by the
prosecution side. The incident had occurred in a get-together party where friends and
family of Rajesh and Sangeetha were present but no one in that crowd noticed that
Varshini pushed Sangeetha into pool. It is common that every person being forcibly
pushed into the pool would scream. But it is a million dollar question as to why
Sangeetha scream was not heard to anyone. Hence, No Eye-witness is found. In the
absence of material evidence, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused is guilty
beyond all reasonable doubts. As the intimate photos of the Sangeetha were published
to everyone, there may be chance for Sangeetha herself to commit suicide. And so the
scream of Sangeetha was not audible to anyone.
And the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict Varshini on the ground that
she had made attempt to murder Sangeetha. Hence the court will find the appellant
not guilty. Then the Benefit of Doubt is given to the accused.
Therefore the counsel for the appellant humbly submits that the accused Varshini is
not guilty under attempt to murder of Sangeetha.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTIONS 500, 506,

509 OF PENAL CODE AND THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67, 67A OF IT ACT?
The Counsel for the appellant humbly prays before this hon’ble HC that
accused (Varshini) is not guilty under the session court. The investigation of the
police is failed to prove the guilty of the accused completely. The evidences provided
by the police during the trail in the Hon'ble Session Court were not sufficient to prove
the guilty of the accused (varshini).
2.1. CHARGED UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67 AND 67A OF IT ACT:
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble High Court that the accused is not
guilty under the provisions 66E, 67, and 67A of IT Act.
2.1.1. Not guilty under section 66E of IT Act:
The conviction of the accused under the section 66E of IT Act is invalid and
the violation of the privacy of the victim was not caused by the accused.
The section 66E of IT Act states that

13
“Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of
the private area of any person without his consent, under the circumstances violating
the privacy of that person”9.
The accused (varshini) is not liable under this section because there is a
possibility of capturing of the private pictures of the victim by any one and there is no
solid proof that the Varshini is the person who captures the photographs of the person.
The only evidence is that the statement delivered by the Varshini that "I was me who
fixed the camera in the wall clock and published Sangeetha's intimate photos to ruin
her reputation and since her reputation is ruined, Rajesh will back to me". According
to section 26, a person when he is in police custody, is presumed to be under the
control and influence of police officer. Therefore, a confession made not only to the
police officer but to any one is irrelevant under section 26. Section 26 of Indian
Evidence Act renders a confession made to a police officer or to anyone is invalid. 10
The exception to section 26 of Indian Evidence Act is section 27 of same Act. This
exception is not applied here. In the case of Jaffer Hussain Dastagir v. State of
Maharastra, the appellant who was charged with stealing of diamonds made a
statement in the police custody to the effect "I will point out one Ramsingh at
Bombay Central Railway Station at the third class waiting hall to whom I have given
a packet containing diamonds more than 200 in number". The appellant led the police
party to Bombay central Railway Station and pointed out the third accused and his
having the custody of diamonds was already known to police through Bombay
samachar newspaper. The information given by the appellant was held to be
inadmissible. In the present case, the statement uttered by the accused leads the police
to the discovery of Camera from the wall clock in the Rajesh bedroom. But police had
already known that the wall-clock was gifted by the accused and it is in the bedroom
of Rajesh and police can presume where must be the camera exists from the intimate
pictures received by Sangeetha. The statement of the accused does not lead to the
discovery of any fact. Hence it is held inadmissible. Therefore the Counsel for the
Appellant humbly prays that the accused is not guilty under section 66E of IT Act,
2000.
9
Section 66E, IT Act, Act of Parliament, 2000.
10
Commisioner of Police v. Narender Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1800.
14
2.1.2. Charged under provisions 67 and 67A of IT Act:
It is humbly submitted before this honourable high court that the convictions
made by the session court was invalid. The accused is not guilty under the section 67
of IT act for the publishing of information which is obscene in the electronic form.
The section 67 of IT Act states that "whoever publishes or transmit or cause to

be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or
appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect in such as to intent to deprive and correct
the person "11
The section 67A states that, "Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be

published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually
explicit act or conduct".12
The act of publishing the material containing of sexual content to the public
was not caused by the accused varshini. The report submitted by the Cyber Cell is the
only evidence submitted by the respondent side to conclude Varshini is guilty under
the section 67 and 67A of IT Act, 2000. The Cyber Cell report states that the
anonymous number from which the Sangeetha received photos is belong to Varshini.
This confirms only that the number from which the intimate photos were received by
Sangeetha is from Varshini's number but it is not sufficient to prove that the intimate
photos are send by Varshini. Varshini is an OCD patient. Because of OCD, sometimes
the patient may fell into deep anxiety and over thinking. By this time, anyone can
access the Varshini's mobile. In the present case, there is a male who wishes the death
of Sangeetha and threaten her through phone call. He may the person who access the
Varshini's mobile and send those stuffs. The Police failed to trace this male voice. By
this the Police and the prosecution failed to prove guilty of the accused under Section
67 and 67A of IT Act, 2000. Hence the Counsel for the respondent humbly prays that
the accused is not guilty under the Sections 67 and 67A of IT Act, 2000.
2.2. Conviction under the defamation (section 500):
An act of defamation means causing an injury to the reputation of a person.

The defamation is a form of imputation to the reputation of a person.
11
Section 67, IT Act, Act of Parliament, 2000.
12
Section 67A, IT Act, Act of Parliament, 2000.
15
The section 500 of the Indian Penal Code states that ‘Whoever, by words,
either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes
or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having a reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such
person, is said, expect in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person’13.
The defamatory offence consists of three elements of it
(i) The person

(ii) His reputation and
(iii) Harm to the reputation of the person with necessary mens rea.
This section embodying the law of defamation requires three essentials:
1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;

2. That imputation must have been made by :
a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or
b) signs;
c) visible representation;
3. Such imputation must be with the intention of harm or with knowledge that
it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.
It is of the essence that in order to constitute the offence of defamation, it must
be communication to a third person because what is intended by the imputation is to
arouse the hospitality of others. It is not necessary to prove that the complainant
actually suffered directly or indirectly from the scandalous imputation alleged; it is
sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm, or knew, or had reason to
believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the
complainant. Thus by ‘harm’ is meant imputation on a person’s character made and
expressed to others so as to lower him in their estimation. As it states that there is a
requirements of presence of intention and mens rea in the act of defamation but, the
accused had no intention of defaming the Victim through intimated photos because
the intimated photos contain the personal photos of both Sangeetha and Rajesh,
publishing these photo will not only ruin the reputation of Sangeetha, it also ruin the
Rajesh's reputation also. Varshini loves Rajesh, so she will not ruin his reputation.
And there is no solid proof that the private pictures of Sangeetha were shared to the
13
Section 500, IPC,1860
16
public by Varshini. The Police failed to trace from where the photos are shared to
public. So we cannot conclude that the defamatory was done only by the accused, yet
it was not even proved by the police.
In the case Radhanath Rath v. Birja Prasad Ray14the respondent published

certain defamatory matter, against the complainant and later the respondent had
apologized for such publication. And informed the complainant it was published
without his knowledge, and he had no ill will against the complainant. The
complainant filed the suit under the section 500, 501 and 502.the court opined, as it
came to his notice and expressed that it was published without his knowledge and
without any ill-will towards the complainant, the respondent could not be held liable
under the defamation.
This liability of a person under the defamation can be justified by the presence
of intention and knowledge of the act. Here the intention of the accused of defaming
the victim is not justified. Hence the counsel for the Appellant humbly prays that the
accused is not guilty under defamation.
2.3. Charged under criminal intimidation (Section 506):
By charging the accused under 506 of IPC it was alleged that the accused
Varshini threatened Sangeetha to cause an alarm.
The section 506 of IPC states that
‘Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to
the person or the reputation of any person on whom that the person is interested
1. With the intent to cause alarm to that person,

2. To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do,
3. To omit to do any act which that person or legally entitled to do, as the means
of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation’ 15.
The essentials of criminal intimidation are:
14
Radhanath Rath v. Birja Prasad Ray 1992 Cr LJ 938
15
Section 506, IPC, 1860
17
i) Threatening a person with any injury
A) To his person, or reputation or property; or
B) To the person, or reputation of any one in whom that the person is

interested.
ii) The threat must be with intent
A) To cause alarm to that person, or
B) To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as

the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
C) To cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
2.3.1. Threatening through CALL
As the threat call to the victim Sangeetha where made in a male voice in a
public PCO at Mudichur. The police failed to trace the male voice who uttered the
threatening sentence. At the time of incident Varshini was at Aruvi district. There is
nothing in the fact to show that the Varshini had travelled to Mudichur. Hence, it is
concluded that Varshini had not threatened Sangeetha through message.
2.3.2. Threatening through message
The Cyber Cell report states that the anonymous number from which the
Sangeetha received the message is belong to Varshini. This confirms only that the
number from which the intimate photos were received by Sangeetha is from
Varshini's number but it is not sufficient to prove that the intimate photos are send by
Varshini. As we argued above, Varshini is an OCD patient. Because of OCD,
sometimes the patient may fell into deep anxiety and over thinking. By this time,
anyone can access the Varshini's mobile. In the present case, there is a male who
wishes the death of Sangeetha and threaten her through phone call. He may the person
who access the Varshini's mobile and send this message. The Police failed to trace
this male voice. The benefit of doubt is always given to the accused. Hence the
accused is not guilty under criminal intimidation.

18
2.3 charged under section 509 of IPC:
In the act under this section is an action of insulting the modesty of a woman this section
punishes a person who intentionally insults a woman in any way of specified therein a person
whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman intending to outrage her modesty.
The section 509 of states
“Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - whoever, intending to
insult the modesty of any women, utters any words, makes any sound or gestures, or exhibits any
object, intending, that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be
seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman.” 16A person had the necessary
intention to insult the modesty of woman and for that he had set something or uttered some
words, the accused would be held guilty under section 509. This provision is a sort of aggression
into a woman modesty whether by any words, deed, or act should be deterred. 17
As we argued above, the accused has no intention to defame or to insult the modesty of
Sangeetha. And the intimated photos are not published by Varshini. Hence the counsel for the
appellant humbly prays that the accused varshini is not guilty under the section 509 of IPC for
insulting the modesty of a woman
3. WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRAIL COURT IS VALID AND

LEGAL?
It is humbly submitted before this hon'ble HC that the punishment imposed by the session
court to the accused is invalid and illegal.
3.1. PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT
As we argued above, the accused is not guilty under the sections 307, 500, 506, 509 of
BPC and 66E, 67 and 67A of IT Act, 2000.But the Session Court rejected the plea of insanity
and sentenced Varshini to 10 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50000.
16
Section 509, IPC, 1860
17
Harris M M 2005 Cri LJ 3314 (Ker).
19
3.2. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCES
The Evidences provided against Varshini are
1. Statement delivered by her during police investigation which leads to the discovery of
camera.
2. Cyber cell report
3.2.1. Statement delivered by her is inadmissible:
According to section 26 of Indian evidence act, the confession delivered by the accused
while in the police custody is inadmissible. Here Varshini was arrested. During police
investigation, Police forced the Varshini to deliver a confession that she was the one who fixed
the camera in the Rajesh's room and published the photographs of Sangeetha. As police already
knows that the accused gifts the wall clock and the camera is in the wall clock (this can be
known from the intimated photographs), the statement delivered by the accused is inadmissible.
3.2.2. Cyber cell report is inadequate
The report submitted by the Cyber cell states that the photos and messages received by
Sangeetha from the anonymous number belonged to Varshini. As the accused was an OCD
patient, it often led her to anxiety and over thinking. During this time, there may be a chance for
use of her mobile by anyone. So, the mobile number alone can't be an evidence to convict
Varshini. The benefit of doubt is always given to the accused. Hence it was contented that these
evidences are not adequate to convict Varshini.
3.3. Insanity as a defence:
In the present case, the accused has no mens rea and does not done any criminal act. For
argument sake, if the accused is considered to be guilty under the offences, it can be exempted
by the private defence under section 84 of IPC. In the present case, the accused is an OCD
patient. OCD is an anxiety disorder characterized by uncontrollable, unwanted thoughts and
repetitive, ritualized behaviour one feels compelled to perform. The thoughts are intrusive in
nature, unpleasant and distressing and cause uneasiness, apprehension, fear or worry. In the case

20
of Sanjay Madhukar Satam v. The state of Maharastra18 the Bombay High Court acquitted the
accused after it came to light that he was suffering from OCD with paranoia a form of mental
illness. In legal terms he was non compos mentis when he committed the crime Latin for not of
sound mind which is a valid legal defence. In the present case also, the accused is suffering from
OCD a form of mental illness. Hence she can be acquitted on the basis of private defence under
section 84 of IPC.
3.4. Incomplete investigation by the police:
In the present case, the report submitted by the police is held to be incomplete, because
the police had failed to investigate some important facts in the case. The police failed in
investigating the following two matters:
Firstly, the male voice which threatened Sangeetha to divorce her husband, otherwise sort
to be killed. It is evident from the sentence that male voice has an intention to separate Sangeetha
and Rajesh and to kill Sangeetha. But the police failed to trace that male voice.
Secondly, the source from which the intimate photos of Sangeetha were published to
others was not traced by the Police. This source is an essential element to prove the mens rea and
actus reus.
In the case of H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 19 the SC held that improper investigation by
the police officials helps in giving the accused, the benefit of reasonable doubt. In the present
case also the investigation done by the police is incomplete and improper. Hence the benefit of
doubt is given to the accused.
The Session Court failed to consider these points which are in favour of accused and
convicted the accused. Therefore the counsel for the appellant humbly prays that the accused is
not guilty under offences charged and the punishment imposed by the session court is invalid and
illegal.
18
Sanjay Madhukar Satam v. The state of Maharastra criminal appeal no. 1121 of 2006
19
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi 1955 AIR 196.
21
PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon'ble HC pleased to
1. Declare and adjudge that the appeal is maintainable.

2. set aside the punishment imposed on the accused by the Sessions Court
3. Declare and adjudge that the accused is not guilty under the offences charged,
as the benefit of doubt is given to the accused
AND/OR
Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which are most humbly and respectfully prayed
Place: State of Kandigai s/d
Date: counsel for appellant

22

23

Bil 15 A

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bil 15 A

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2023

(BHARAT INSTITUTE OF LAW)

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF LAW

1st NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KANDIGAI

Criminal appeal no. ___________/2023

STATE OF KANDIGAI RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF ON APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. BPC Bhoomi Penal Code

4. Cri C Criminal Cases

5. Cr.P.C Criminal procedure Code

8. IPC Indian Penal Code

10. LUCK Lucknow

11. SC Supreme Court

12. SCC Supreme Court Cases

13. s/d Signature

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. B.M. GANDHI'S- Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Cr.P.C 374:- Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Appeals from convictions

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILY UNDER THE IPC SECTION OF

2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506,

3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTION 500, 506,

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the convictions made by

3) WHETHER THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IS

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the punishment

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1. An evil intent or knowledge

It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an

 The act (actus reus)

 The intention (mens rea)2

1.3.Absence of Actus Reus:

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER THE SECTIONS 500, 506,

2.1. CHARGED UNDER THE PROVISIONS 66E, 67 AND 67A OF IT ACT:

2.1.1. Not guilty under section 66E of IT Act:

The section 66E of IT Act states that

The section 67 of IT Act states that "whoever publishes or transmit or cause to

The section 67A states that, "Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be

2.2. Conviction under the defamation (section 500):

An act of defamation means causing an injury to the reputation of a person.

The defamatory offence consists of three elements of it

(i) The person

1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;

In the case Radhanath Rath v. Birja Prasad Ray14the respondent published

2.3. Charged under criminal intimidation (Section 506):

The section 506 of IPC states that

1. With the intent to cause alarm to that person,

A) To his person, or reputation or property; or

B) To the person, or reputation of any one in whom that the person is

ii) The threat must be with intent

A) To cause alarm to that person, or

B) To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as