Respondent SENT ANSAL

ANSAL UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020
ANSAL UNIVERSITY NATIONAL

MEMORIAL MOOT
ON BEHALF COURT COMPETITION, 2020
OF RESPONDENTS
TEAM CODE: - AU10
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ABIBI
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO
CRIMINAL MATTERS
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. _ of 2020
APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134(1) (C)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. ADIL KHAN …APPEALANT

V.
UNION OF ABIBI …RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 2-3
ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................................. 4
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... 5-6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................... 7- 25
I. THAT IS, THE APPEAL UNDER ART.134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE…………………………………….....… 7-10
1.1 THERE HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATION OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF
JUSTICE. ...................................................................................................... 7-8
1.2 THERE WILL BE WASTAGE OF TIME OF THE HONOURABLE COURT. 9
1.3 THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REVOKED……………………....…. 9
1.4 THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REVOKED........................................... 9-10
II. THAT IS, THE THAT THE APPELLANT’S POSTED BLOG AMOUNTS TO
SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A IPC...................................................... 10- 15.
2.1 ADIL’S BLOG BRING INTO HATRED TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT
ESTABLISHED BY LAW……………………………………………… 11-12

2.2 ADIL’S BLOG HAS CREATED THE PUBLIC DISORDER…………… 12-14
2.3 CONVICTION IS IN INCONFORMITY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
INSTRUMENT…………………………………………………………… 15
III. THAT IS, THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH
COURT IS VALID……………………................................................……... 15-25
3.1 THERE IS REQUIRED CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ……………… 15-19
3.2 OFFENCES OF ABDUCTION, RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE
APPELLANT……………….......................................................................... 19-25
3.2.1 THERE IS REQUIRED INTENTION FOR THE ABDUCTION.19-21
3.2.2 RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE APPELANT……… 21-22
3.2.3 HOMICIDE COMMITTED AGAINST THE VICTIM AMOUNTS
TO MURDER………………………………………………….. 23-25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………. 26

LIST OF ABBREVIATION
¶, Para Paragraph
& And
AIR All India Report
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Consti. Constitution
Crpc. Criminal Procedure Code
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e That is
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union of India
Vs/v/V. Verses
u/s Under Section
ss. Sections
S. Section
Ltd. Limited
HC High Court
Per se By itself
Ipso facto By the very fact itself
Id. The same
Edn. Edition
VOL. Volume
U.P Uttar Pradesh
AC Appeal cases
K.B King’s Bench
Supp. supplement
All Allahabad
S.C.R Supreme Court Report
Cri Criminal
U.S United States
Ker Kerala
No. Number
SLP Special Leave Petition
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
W. B West Bengal
Anr Another
U.K United Kingdom

STATUTES & INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976
BOOKS REFERRED & WEBSITES
1. Justice M. R. Mallick, Criminal Manual, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, section 9,
illustration C, 08,(Professional Book Publishers, New Delhi, 2018)
2. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. III, P.1, (1883)
3. Hari Singh Gaur, Penal Law of India, 3611, (11th edition, Vol. IV, 2000)
4. Shakil Ahmed Khan, Ratanlal&Dhirajlal : The Law of Evidence, 562, ( 26th edition,
Lexis Nexis, 2017)
5. Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Spech under the Indian Constitution,
99, (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2016 )
6. K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Sixth Edition, Lexis Nexis, 2018
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, with a Foreword
Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah
8. Pillai, Criminal Law 1131( K.I.VibhuteEdn. 2009)
9. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hymen
CASES
1. Ashok Kumar & Others v. State Of U.P., CRIMINAL APPEAL No .- 2156 of 2011.
......................................................................................................................................20,22
2. Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393......................................................... 20
3. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 969………………………………….. 18
4. Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002)8 SCC 45, (SC), [13]……......... 16
5. Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, (1905) AC 369…………………………….... 8
6. G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914........................................... 23
7. Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 (4) SCC 604……………. 17
8. K.A. Mohamad Khan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala, AIR 1964 Ker 104..................... 14
9. KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769…………………….. 11,13
10. KeshavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461………………………. 12
11. Kirti Pal v. State of W. B., (2015) 11 SCC 178............................................................. 20
12. Mahant Har Kishan v. Satgur Prasad, AIR 1953 All 129............................................... 9
13. Maharashtra Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 652:
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 326…………………………………………………………….... 24
14. Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police,Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 of 2019[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.7581-7582
of 2014)......................................................................................................................... 24
15. NazirKhan & Ors. v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 4427. ………………………….. 13
16. Newman v. Klausner, (1922) 1 K.B. 228...................................................................... 8
17. Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 19, 1999 SCC (Cri) 334…………... 25
18. Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath, ( 1991) 1 SCC 556………………………… 9
19. Ponnamma v. Arumogam, (1905) A.C. 390……………………………………... 8
20. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v.The Union of India1957 AIR 628.............................. 14
21. Rajendra Singh Yadav v. Chandra Sen & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 882……………… 7,8,9
22. Ram Gulam Chaudhary& Ors.v.State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 311……………... 21
23. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U. P., [1957] 1 SCR 860................................................ 14
24. S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574............................................... 14
25. SharadViridhi Chandra Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116…….. 18
26. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)..................................................................... 13
27. State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370 ……………. 7,8,10
28. State of Orissa V. Sashi Bhusan Kar, LQ 1985 HC 2917.......................................... 9
29. State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679…………………………... 19,22
30. State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 382……… 20
31. Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution, 1944 AC 315………………………… 17
32. Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, (1905) AC 369............................................................ 8
33. Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi, (2016) 10 SCC 315................................................ 9
34. The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar (1955) 2 S.C.R. 603. 14
35. TrimukhMarotiKirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681………………. 17
36. Uttar Pradesh v. ChotteyLal(2011) 2 SCC 550……………………………………... 21

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Court has Jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Art. 134(1) (c) of the
Constitution of Abibi.
Art. 134 of the Constitution of Abibi read as:
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court with regard to criminal matters. — (1) An
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) Has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and
has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) [Certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made
in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may
establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT IN THE INSTANT CASE.
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background: The Union of Abibi is a democratic republic with a unique history & culture and
diverse population. It is a constitutional republic consisting of 29 states, second most populous
country in the world having distinctive tradition primarily with Hinduism. Constitution of Abibi
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to one and all. It provides safeguards to
fundamental rights against arbitrary decisions. Adil khan, 21yr old from State of Mohenjo,
studies law at National University of Abibi in Moba in a student exchange programme. The State
of Mohenjo is a lavish State in the Islamic Republic of Isbani. Islamic Republic of Isbani is a
populous and multi-ethnic country. Isbani neighbors are Iran, Afghanistan and Abibi. Abibi got
independence in 1947, Isbani is overwhelmingly a Muslim populated nation. Republic of Isbani
was once a part of Abibi and separated from it in the year 1947. Both countries’ intercourse is
complex and conflicting.
Incident: Adil Khan created an online blog on www.thebridge.com title “My Rights My Voice”
on 20 May 2019. He wrote several articles on gender discrimination, child labour, child
marriage, women and child trafficking etc. On 15August 2019, he posted a very reality-based
blog stating about exploitation, harassment and discrimination of Muslim. According to Adil, the
country has forgotten real meaning of constitution and also ignorant about the infringement of
minority rights. Major riots were suffered by the city of Moba because of Adil’s viral blog, Abibi
on 21 August, 2019, in which mass tried to destroy the oldest temples Shri Ram Chandra
Bhagwan, there is clash between two groups resulting in death of 164 and leaving 343 peoples
injured.
F.I.R, Investigation & Arrest: Because of grave nature of Adil Khan’s articles Moba Police
instituted an FIR against Adil Khan on August 24, 2019 under section 124A of IPC. On August
26, 2019 after court order for arrest of Adil, the police arrived at the National University of Abibi
but Adil was not found in university campus. The Police received information from Adil’s
friends that he shifted to his uncle’s house two days ago. The Police found that he had not
attended any of his classes since 23 August 2019. The Moba Police searched his hostel room
1025. The police entered the room by breaking the lock. The Police found a dead body of a girl,
naked and in a decomposed state. The body was sent for post-mortem. On next day, the inspector
Braj Tripathi was appointed as the investigation officer for the case and the FIR was amended
2
with the charges under section 300,375,362 of IPC later on the same day Adil Khan was arrested
from his uncle’s house.
Trail and Judgement: Adil was testified before chief judicial magistrate as well as witness
testimony, post – mortem report internal examination report was produced before the trial court.
The Trial Court held that Adil is liable under Section 124A, 300, 362 & 375 of Indian Penal
Code. Adil then filed an appeal in the High Court of Moba, in which the Hon’ble High Court
upheld the judgment pronounced by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Adil is filing an
appeal in the Supreme Court of Abibi.
International Views
Various accusations are made on the country’s administration and justice system across the globe
by international states and non-states actors. Many of the countries are also trying to connect the
dots to expose Abibi for violation of International Humanitarian Laws.
3
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1:
THAT IS, THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ABIBI
IS MAINTANABLE.
ISSUE2:
THAT IS, THE THAT THE APPELLANT’S POSTED BLOG AMOUNTS TO SEDITION
UNDER SECTION 124A IPC.
ISSUE3:
THAT IS, THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT IS
VALID.
4
SUMMARY OF ARGUUMENT
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

ABIBI IS MAINTANABLE?
It is humbly submitted by the counsel for the State before the Hon’ble Court that Appeal by the
petitioner challenging the conviction is not maintainable by virtue of Art.134(1) (c) of the
Constitution of India. Since the matter before the court, does neither involve the substantial
question of law nor its interpretation on which there is urgent requirement of the opinion of the
hon’ble Court. And the trial court has investigated the various facts and evidences in detail, and
then Hon’ble HC upheld the same. So it does not hold merit for admitting this appeal. Hence,
court may be pleased to dismiss this appeal.
2. WHETHER THE THAT THE APPELLANT’S POSTED BLOG AMOUNTS TO

SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A IPC.
It is humbly submitted by the council of state before the Hon’ble Court that the act of Adil
targeting other religion especially Hinduism, questioning the secularity of the Republic of Abibi
and rewriting the Preamble of Constitution of Abibi amounts to sedition under section 124A of
the IPC, 1860 as such act intends to excite disaffection towards the established government
through his blog which ultimately leads to communal riots. The act of Adil, of falsifying Abibi’s
preamble, was per se intends to excite disaffection and to promote public disorder. The right of
expression exercised negligently and such negligent exercise of right cannot be protected under
any law.
3. WHETHER THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT

WAS VALID?
The counsel contends that the alleged offences have been committed by the Appellant and the
High Court of Moba rightly upheld the conviction of the accused. There is satisfactory chain of
5
evidences suggesting the conviction of Adil reasonable. All evidences, testimonies are
complementary. The circumstantial evidences such as, finding of dead body, his absconding
from the hostel was ipso facto providing sufficient linkage between the accused intention and the
offence committed.
6
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1. THAT THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ABIBI IS

NOT MAINTAINABLE.
1) If the certificate does not mention the particular article to appeal, the certificate contemplated
under Article 134-A of the Constitution can only be a certificate which is referred to in clause (1)
of Article 132 or in clause (1) of Article 133 or in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 134 of
the Constitution.1 This is quite obvious from the language of Article 134-A of the Constitution.
This case falls under sub-clause (c) of Article 134(1) as it is a criminal proceeding. 2
2) While Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134(1) of the Constitution confer upon the accused an
absolute right of appeal, Clause (c) confers upon the High Court a discretion to grant a certificate
to the accused to appeal in cases not falling under Sub-clauses (a) and (b). The grant of
certificate under Article 134(1) (c) is not a matter of course. The certificate is granted only where
there has been an infringement of the essential principles of justice or there is substantial
question of law or principle involved; in short the certificate would not be granted unless there
are exceptional and-special circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that the conditions
pre-requisite for the exercise of the discretionary power to grant a certificate under Article
134(1)(c) cannot be precisely formulated but it should be exercised sparingly and not to convert
the Supreme Court into an ordinary court of criminal appeal. 3
1.1 THERE HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATION OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE
3) It is submitted that the case was heard by the Trial Court initially, the appellant’s arguments
were heard in conformity with the basic principle of natural justice. 4 The accused gave his
1
State Bank of India v. S.B.I. Employees' Union, (1987) 4 SCC 370
2
Id.
3
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors., AIR 1979 SC 882
4
¶14, Moot Proposition
7
statement in presence of Chief Judicial Magistrate of Moba District, Lawyer of Defence and
Prosecution and on oath.5
4) Natural justice cannot be fixed on a rigid frame and fundamental fairness is not unresponsive
to circumstances. The very fact that the subject matter is not fraught with loss of life or long
incarceration and that the appellate or revisionary authority is a high tribunal which has
examined the materials are an assurance of competent and conscientious consideration of the
facts and the law. 6
5) Going to the basics, an appeal "is the right of entering a superior court and invoking its aid
and interposition to redress the error of the court below.... An appeal, strictly so called, is one "in
which the question is, whether the order of the court from which the appeal is brought was right
on the materials which that court had before it 7" A right of appeal, where it exists, is a matter of
substance, and not of procedure 8 . Thus, the right of appeal is paramount, the procedure for
hearing canalises so that extravagant prolixity or abuse of process can be avoided and a fair
workability provided. Amputation is not procedure while pruning may be. Of course, procedure
is within the Court's power but the appeal is a remedial right and if the remedy is reduced to a
husk by procedural excess, the right became a casualty. That cannot be. 9
6) Article 134-A was enacted to make good the said deficiencies. Article 134-A does not
constitute an independent provision under which a certificate can be issued. It is ancillary to
Article 132(1), Article 133(1) and Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution. That is the reason for
the use of words “if the High Court certifies under Article 134-A” in Article 132(1) and Article
133(1) and for the use of the words certifies under Article 134-A in Article 134(1)(c). The High
Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied that the conditions in Article 132 or Article
133 or Article 134 of the Constitution as the case may be are satisfied. 10
5
Exibit - III
6
7
Lord Davey, Ponnamma v. Arumogam, (1905) A.C. 390
8
(Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, (1905) AC 369; Newman v. Klausner, (1922) 1 K.B. 228
9
10
8
1.2. THE CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
7) Substantial question of law means a substantial question of law between the parties
involved.11 A question is substantial as between the parties if the decision turns one way or the
other, on the particular view of law. If it does not affect the decision, it cannot be said to be
substantial as between the parties. 12 Ultimately, what is a substantial question of law would
depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 13
1.3. THERE WILL BE WASTAGE OF TIME OF THE HONOURABLE COURT
8) Further protection at the third deck by calling for the records or launching on long
ratiocination is a waste of judicial time. Our rules of criminal procedure and those of other
countries with mature systems of justice provide for dismissal at the third level without assigning
written reasons, not because there are no reasons, but because the tardy need to document them
hampers the hearing of the many cases in the queue that press upon the time of the court at that
level. 14
9) We must clarify that very right of appeal does not carry with it all the length of getting the
record, hearing both sides and giving full reasons for decisions. Then the institutions of justice
will come to a grinding halt.15
1.4. THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REVOKED
10) What has been provided in Art. 134A is the only course for grant of a certificate for leave to
appeal. It cannot be said to be an enabling or supplemental provision 16 . Article 134-A was
enacted to make good the said deficiencies. Article 134-A does not constitute an independent
provision under which a certificate can be issued. It is ancillary to Article 132(1), Article 133(1)
and Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. That is the reason for the use of words “if the High
11
Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi, (2016) 10 SCC 315
12
Mahant Har Kishan v. Satgur Prasad, AIR 1953 All 129
13
Pankaj Bhargava v. Mohinder Nath, ( 1991) 1 SCC 556
14
15
16
State of Orissa V. Sashi Bhusan Kar, LQ 1985 HC 2917
9
Court certifies under Article 134-A” in Article 132(1) and Article 133(1) and for the use of the
words certifies under Article 134-A in Article 134(1)(c). The High Court can issue a certificate
only when it is satisfied that the conditions in Article 132 or Article 133 or Article 134 of the
Constitution as the case may be are satisfied. 17
11) Hence the appeal filed by the appellant does not stand the requirement of appeal under Art.
134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of Abibi, 1950. There has not been violation of natural justice and
hence to prevent the precious time of the Honourable Court the appeal should be dismissed.
2. THAT THE APPELLANT’S POSTED BLOG AMOUNTS TO SEDITION UNDER

SECTION 124A IPC.
12) It is submitted that the contentious blog posted by Adil targeting other religions especially
Hinduism, questioning the secularity of the Republic of Abibi and rewriting the Preamble of
Constitution of Abibi18 amounts to sedition under section 124A of the IPC, 1860.
13) Sedition under section 124A IPC, 1860 as follow-
124A. Sedition.—Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1.—the expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of
the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section19.
14) The essentials of the offence under S. 124A are:
17
18
19
Section 124, Indian Penal Code, 1860
10
1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite

disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written, or (ii) by signs, or (iii)
by visible representation.20
The descriptions which the Indian Penal Code gives are that the term ―disaffection includes
disloyalty and all feelings of hate21.
In KedarNath v. state of Bihar22 in which for the very first time scope of sedition as a penal
offence was laid down and it was held that the gist of the offence of sedition is “incitement to
violence” or the “tendency or the intention to create public disorder.
2.1. APPELLANT’S BLOG BRING INTO HATERD TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT

ESTABLISH BY THE LAW
15) In the present case Adil’s blog acted as a spark to all Muslim which in turn resulted in
National level communal riots aggression among people 23. Adil, in his blog, highly criticised this
behaviour against his community and targeted other religions especially Hinduism 24 and in
relation to these cases and questioned the “SECULARITY” of the “Republic of Abibi” 25. He
rewrote the Preamble of the Constitution26 of Abibi removing some of the objectives –‘secular’,
‘social justice’, ‘liberty of thought, expression and worship’, ‘equality of status and opportunity’,
‘dignity of individual’, specified in the Preamble.The act of posting such a blog without any
reasonable doubt bring into hatred towards the government establish by law.
16) This Court in the case of KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar 27 understood the term
‘Government establish by law’ in the following way:-
….the expression ‘government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons for
the time being engaged in carrying the administration. ‘Government established by law’ is the
20
Pillai, Criminal Law 1131( K.I.VibhuteEdn. 2009)
21
Explanation 1, Section 124A IPC
22
1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769],
23
24
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
[1962] SCR Supp. (2) 769
11
visible symbol of the state. The very existence of the state will be in jeopardy if the government
established by law is subverted.
17) Consequently the ‘government established by law’ referring to party in power, and referring
to the symbol of the state, must be distinguished. The target must now be the institution of
governance, that is, republican democracy, embodied by various elements of the Constitution’s
basic structure 28 . The objectives specified in the preamble contain the basic structure of the
Constitution, which cannot be amended even in exercise of power under article 368 of the
Constitution. 29 Therefore rewriting the Preamble of constitution of Abibi and questioning the
secularity, and hence targeting the institution of governance leads to bringing hatred with
required intention towards the government established by law.
2.2) ADIL’S BLOG HAS CREATED THE PUBLIC DISORDER
18) Further Adil’s blog post not only injured the sanctity of the constitution of Abibi by
falsifying the written text, making misleading & ambiguous statements targeting only a
particular community or religion30.Moreover his blog post resulted in national level communal
riots and aggression among the people. 31 In one major communal riot was suffered by the city of
Moba, Abibi on August 21, 2019 in which a mass tried to destroy one of the oldest temples of
Shri Ram Chandra Bhagwan 32, leading to a clash between two groups which resulted in the
death of 164 people and left 343 injured.33 Seeing this amid unrest in various regions of the
country, one of the major regions being the city of Moba, the Executive Magistrate of the
Metropolitan issued a public order on August 23, 2019 under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. 34 These instances without any reasonable doubt show the public disorder in the
Abibi as a result of the blog posted by the Adil, which is having tendency to create disorder.
19) Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers as sedition all those
practices which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public
28
Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Spech under the Indian Constitution, 99, (Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2016 )
29
KeshavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, Para. 292, 437, 599, 682, 1164
30
¶ 10, Moot Proposition
31
Id.
32
¶ 11, Moot Proposition
33
Id.
34
Id.
12
disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the
Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm, and generally all endeavours to promote
public disorder.35 The security of the State, which depends upon the maintenance of law and
order is the very basic consideration upon which legislation, with view to punishing offences
against the State, is undertaken. Such legislation has, on the one hand, fully to protect and
guarantee the freedom of speech and expression, which is the sine quo non to a democratic form
of Government that our Constitution has established. … But the freedom has to be guarded
against becoming a licence for vilification and condemnation of the Government established by
law, in words, which incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder.
20) A view was taken by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Snyder v. Phelps36,
wherein Mr. John G. Robert, Chief Justice said:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and
… inflict great pain. Hence, it is to be delivered rightfully.”
A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by
way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the
Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.37
21) For any person to be booked under Section 124A it is essential that the act alleged to have
committed has been committed with an intention of creating public disorder or has incited
violence. The relevant part of the KedarNath case38 judgment reads thus:
“..The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be
intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to
violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section
make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however
strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or
spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or
disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of
35
NazirKhan & Ors. v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 4427.
36
562 U.S. 443 (2011)
37
KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769]
38
Id.
13
public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between
individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order.39
22) It is crucial in determining the threshold of incitement required to justify a restriction on
speech. In S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram40, the court held that “the effect of the words must
be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men, and not
those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of
view. The content of the offence of sedition must be determined with reference to the letter and
spirit of the constitution and not to the standards applied during the colonial rule. The act in
question must have tendency to cause public disorder41. The Court formulated those acts which
take an ‘aggravated form of insult to religion when they are perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The calculated tendency of
this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disturb the public order.’
23) It is also well settled that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not
merely to the literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent
history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress 42 . The Bengal
Immunity Company Limited v.The State of Bihar43 and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v.The
Union of India44. Viewed in that light, we have no hesitation in so construing the provisions of
the sections impugned in these cases as to limit their application to acts involving intention or
tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.” 45
24) Hence in the instant case when appreciated in the light of the above cases cited it is clear that
there was seditious speech uttered by the petitioner and also the commotion caused in the rest of
Abibi does amount to act with intention to subvert the government and hence there is case of act
prejudicial to security of State arises.
39
Id.
40
S.Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574
41
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U. P., [1957] 1 SCR 860
42
K.A. Mohamad Khan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala, AIR 1964 Ker 104
43
(1955) 2 S.C.R. 603
44
1957 AIR 628
45
KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
14
1.3) CONVICTION IS INCONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT
25) Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, incorporates the
freedom of speech and expression as follow -
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,
in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special
duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only
be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of
others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
26) It is evident from the above said provision that the speech of expression of a particular
person can be curtailed and hence can be punished for the same. Hence in the light of fact and
cited authorities is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants blog amount to sedition
under article 124A IPC.
3. THAT THE CONVICTION BY THE SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT IS

VALID
27) The counsel contends the alleged offences has been committed by the Appellant and the
High Court of Moba rightly upheld the conviction of the accused.
3.1 THERE IS REQUIRED CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES
28) ‘Circumstantial evidences and the testimonial presented herein with’ form the required chain
of circumstances to establish the said offence against the appellant. The circumstances
conclusively prove that all the pieces of the puzzle fit so perfectly that they leave no reasonable
15
ground for a conclusion consistent with the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant, rather
the same leads to the irrefutable conclusion that it is the appellant who took away the victim girl
to his hostel room 1025 46 , raped her and subsequently caused to death. Consequently, the
conviction of the appellant under Sections 300, 362 & 375 of IPC, 1860 was upheld by the High
Court of Moba.
29) Circumstantial evidence to be the sole basis of conviction must satisfy the following
conditions. 47
1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully proved;
2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
3) That the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis except
the one proposed to be proved.
Circumstances establishing guilt is proved

30) In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. 48
31) In the instant case the girl was found partially naked 49 with the torn kurta, and in the partially
decomposed state and a multi-coloured dupatta, with mud stains and sand particles. 50 Two
crescent shaped nail abrasion marks measuring 1.5 cm were present on the left side of the neck
and diffused bruises were present obliquely on the right side of the neck. Ligature marks were
present. The hymen was found to be torn. Mucosa of the stomach, small intestine and large
intestine were found congested. 20cm of cylindrical rod has been inserted into it which has
caused the hymnal tear into 3 ‘o’ clock to 8 ‘o’ clock in position. 51
32) As per the post mortem report of the dead body the death Expected time was 1-2 days52 prior
to the date of admission i.e. prior to 26.08.2019. The mucosa of the stomach, small intestine and
46
47
Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu & Kashmir, [2002] 8 SCC 45, (SC), [13]
48
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
49
Clarification – 1, Clarifications: Moot Proposition
50
51
Exhibit - II
52
Id.
16
large intestine were found congested 53 , which establish the highest probability of the death
caused on 24. 08. 2019.As per the statement 1, 2 and 3 of the witness testimonials on 24. 08.
201954 Adil was present in his hostel room. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a
house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and
commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, A Judge does not preside
over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see
that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. 55
33) Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to
establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of
evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in
other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter
character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on
the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The
inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the
supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there
is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. 56
34) In Gajanan Dashrath KharateVs. State of Maharashtra 57 accused and his father Dashrath
were in the house and when the father of the accused was found dead, it was for the accused to
offer an explanation as to how his father sustained injuries. When the accused could not offer
any explanation as to the homicidal death of his father, it is a strong circumstance against the
accused that he is responsible for the commission of the crime."
All the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
35) The facts that the two crescent shaped nail abrasion marks measuring 1.5 cm were present on
the left side of the neck and diffused bruises were present obliquely on the right side of the neck.
Ligature marks were present. The hymen was torn and 20cm of cylindrical rod has been inserted
into it which has caused the hymnal tear 58 . These circumstances undoubtedly establish the
53
Id.
54
Exhibit I
55
Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315
56
TrimukhMarotiKirkanVs. State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) SCC 681.
57
2016 (4) SCC 604
58
Exhibit - II
17
abduction with intend rape on the victim and the death was caused with the intention of causing
bodily injury as is likely to cause death59.
36) Direct testimony of witnesses which is in general material circumstances cannot be discarded
for not being in strict conformity with medical evidence. Minor discrepancies are not material
since they occur due to individual differences. Where minor discrepancies, not going to the root
of the matter, are found in the evidence of the natural and probable witnesses, the discrepancies
should not be over- emphasised. 60
That the circumstances are of conclusive nature and circumstances only proposed to prove
the guilt of appellant
37) It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and
that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and
there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.61
38) Appellant in the testimonial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he was not in the hostel
for a week, went to my Uncle's place, and in the midst of all this someone is trying to frame me
for these charges. I am nowhere connected to the girl; I've never seen her and I do not know who
she is62. All the statements in the witness testimony provide that on 24. 09. 2019 appellant was in
his hostel room 63 and the day the charged offences took place. In this way the appellant’s
statements found to be untrue.
39) In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there
is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an
incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation
59
Illustarion (a) to section 300, IPC, 1860
60
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 969
61
SharadViridhi Chandra ShardaVs. State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116.
62
Exhibit - III
63
Exhibit - I
18
or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in
the chain of circumstances to make it complete.64
3.2 OFFENCES OF ABDUCTION, RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE

APPELLANT
40) It is submitted that the charged offences have been committed by the appellant. The chain of
the circumstantial evidence is being fulfilled and there is require intention to commit these
offences.
3.2.1 THERE IS REQUIRED INTENTION FOR THE ABDUCTION
41) Abduction is defined under section 362 of the IPC, 1860, that whoever by the force compels,
or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
Abduction pure and simple is not an offence. It is an auxiliary act not punishable in itself, but
when it is accompanied by a certain intention to commit another offence, it per se becomes
punishable as offence. 65
42) It is clear from the facts of this case that the victim has been forcefully abducted to the
appellant’s room with intend to rape and subsequently murder. The victim was partially nacked 66
wearing a white kurta which was torn and a multi-coloured dupatta, with mud stains and sand
particles. Two crescent shaped nail abrasion marks measuring 1.5 cm were present on the left
side of the neck and diffused bruises were present obliquely on the right side of the neck.
Ligature marks were present 67. The hymen was found to be torn. 20cm of cylindrical rod has
been inserted into it which has caused the hymnal tear into 3 ‘o’clock to 8 ‘o’ clock in position68.
These circumstantial evidences in the post mortem report establish that the victim has been
forcefully abducted to the appellant’s room with intend to rape and subsequently murder.
43) The highly probable time for the upheld offences is on 24. 09. 2019 and the appellant were
present at the place of occurrence as per the statement of all witness testimonials 69. Theory of
64
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
65
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 856 (6th edition Lexis Nexis, 2018)
66
67
Exhibit - II
68
Id.
69
Exhibit - I
19
‘last seen alive’ comes into play when the time gap between when the accused and the deceased
were last seen together, and the deceased were found dead was so small, that the possibility of
any other person committing the murder becomes impossible. 70Thus on the principle that the
person who is last found in the company of another is dead or missing, the person with whom he
was last found alive has to explain the circumstances in which he parted company. 71
44) The prosecution is exempted to prove the exact happening of the incident, as the accused
himself would have special knowledge of the incident thus, would have burden of proof as per s.
106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.72Though this theory itself is not a conclusive proof but along
with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like non- explanation of the death of the
deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt. 73
45) The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent
reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the
temper of the rule. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in
conditions such as this. 74
46) Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some
other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of
evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When
inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of
reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle
has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence
Act.75
47) Applying these rules of presumption, Allahabad High Court, in Ashok Kumar & Others v.
State Of U.P.76, observed that, In order to substantiate the conclusion of a valid presumption
against the accused-husband, the onus is on the husband to explain the case of death of a house
wife who is normally residing in the same living place with her husband. This presumption in
terms of Section 106 shifts the burden on the husband as he is in exclusive possession of the
70
Shakil Ahmed Khan, Ratanlal&Dhirajlal : The Law of Evidence, 562, ( 26th edition, Lexis Nexis, 2017)
71
Kirti Pal v. State of W. B., (2015) 11 SCC 178
72
Shakil Ahmed Khan, Ratanlal&Dhirajlal : The Law of Evidence, 563, ( 26th edition, Lexis Nexis, 2017)
73
Ashok v. State of Maharastra, (2015) 4 SCC 393
74
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 382
75
Id.
76
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2156 of 2011
20
premises and there is no involvement of any outsider. The fact of the happening of an incident
inside the premises is presumed to be in the special knowledge of the occupier, and it therefore is
an onus on the occupier to divulge information about the incident or otherwise reasonably
explain his absence or ignorance about the same.
48) In Ram Gulam Chaudhary& Ors. v. Sate of Bihar77, the accused after brutally assaulting
a boy carried him away and thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The
accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy. It
was held that for the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there
was every justification for drawing an inference that they have murdered the boy. It was further
observed that even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the
section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving
facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of
their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different
inference.
3.2.2 RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE APPELANT
49) A person inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the
vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, 78
against her will79, is said to commit rape. The word ‘will’ imply the faculty of reasoning power
of mind that determines whether to do an act or not.80 This court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
ChotteyLal, 81 held that the expression “against her will” would ordinarily mean that the
intercourse was done by the man with a women despite her resistance and opposition. Every act
done ‘against her will’ is obviously ‘without the consent’. 82 The essence of rape is the absence of
consent. Consent means an intelligent, positive concurrence of the ‘will’ of the women. 83
77
(2001) 8 SCC 311
78
Section 375 (b), Indian Penal Code, 1860
79
Clause (1), section 375, Indian Penal Code, 1860
80
Hari Singh Gaur, Penal Law of India, 3611, (11th edition, Vol. IV, 2000)
81
(2011) 2 SCC 550
82
83
21
50) It is found after post mortem that the victim was partially naked84 wearing a white kurta
which was torn and a multi-coloured dupatta, with mud stains and sand particles. Two crescent
shaped nail abrasion marks measuring 1.5 cm were present on the left side of the neck and
diffused bruises were present obliquely on the right side of the neck. Ligature marks were
present. The hymen was found to be torn. Mucosa of the stomach, small intestine and large
intestine were found congested.20cm of cylindrical rod has been inserted into it which has
caused the hymnal tear into 3 ‘o’ clock to 8 ‘o’ clock in position85. Hymen is a membrane which
partially closes the opening of the vagina 86 , which has been torn.
51) These facts without any reasonable doubt establish that the resistance and opposition was
made by the victim but against her will and without her consent 20 cm cylindrical rod inserted
into the vagina causing the hymen torn and hymnal tear 87 . These circumstances undoubtedly
fulfil the essential under section 375(b) and 375 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The fact of the happening of an incident inside the premises is presumed to be in the special
knowledge of the occupier, and it therefore is an onus on the occupier to divulge information
about the incident or otherwise reasonably explain his absence or ignorance about the same. 88In a
case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye- witness account is available, there is
another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating
circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete.89
52) Hence the appellant’s conviction was rightly upheld for the rape on the victim under section
375 of the IPC, 1860.
84
85
Exhibit - II
86
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hymen
87
Exhibit - I
88
Ashok Kumar & Others v. State Of U.P., CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2156 of 2011
89
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679
22
3.2.3 HOMICIDE COMMITTED AGAINST THE VICTIM AMOUNTS TO MURDER
53) The manner of death is homicide.90 Homicide is the highest order of bodily injury that can be
inflicted on a human body. It has from earliest times been considered the most heinous of
offences. 91Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being. 92If the death is most
probable result, it is murder. 93 If the homicide is caused with the intention of causing bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of time to cause death. 94
54) The expected time of death was highly probable on 24. 09. 2019, on that day appellant was
present at the place of occurrence according to the witness testimonials 95. Appellant Adil Khan
was arrested from his uncle's house on the same day96 when after a preliminary search, the police
found a dead body of a girl, partially naked and in a decomposed state, in his hostel room 1025 97.
‘When A is accused if a crime. The relevant fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A
absconded from his house, is relevant, under section 8 of the ‘The Indian Evidence Act, 1872’, as
conduct subsequent to and affected by the facts in issue.’ 98
55) False plea raised by the accused can be taken as a circumstance against the accused. False
and inconsistent defences taken by the accused charged of murder were held to be additional
circumstances against him strengthening the chain of circumstances already firmly established.99
The victim was partially necked 100, wearing a white kurta which was torn and a multi-coloured
dupatta, with mud stains and sand particles. Two crescent shaped nail abrasion marks measuring
1.5 cm were present on the left side of the neck and diffused bruises were present obliquely on
the right side of the neck. Ligature marks were present. The hymen was found to be torn. Mucosa
of the stomach, small intestine and large intestine were found congested. 20cm of cylindrical rod
90
Exhibit - II
91
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 542, (6th edition Lexis Nexis, 2018)
92
Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. III, P.1, (1883)
93
Illustration ( d), section 300, IPC, 1860
94
Section 300, IPC, 1860
95
Exhibit I
96
97
98
Justice M. R. Mallick, Criminal Manual, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, section 9, illustration C, 08,(Professional
Book Publishers, New Delhi, 2018)
99
G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914
100
23
has been inserted into it which has caused the hymnal tear into 3 ‘o’ clock to 8 ‘o’ clock in
position101.
56) Appellant’s, attacking the deceased forcibly and due to insertion of 20 cm rod was pulled out
to the mucosa of the stomach, small intestine and large intestine 102 in the most savage and
inhuman manner that caused grave injuries which ultimately annihilated her life.
57) R.F. NARIMAN, J.(his lordship at that time), in Manoharan v. State by Inspector of
Police,Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore103, emphasised that the accused may not be
hardened criminals; but the cruel manner in which the gang rape was committed in the moving
bus; iron rods were inserted in the private parts of the victim; and the coldness with which both
the victims were thrown naked in cold wintery night of December, shocks the collective
conscience of the society. The present case clearly comes within the category of the rarest of rare
cases where the question of any other punishment is unquestionably foreclosed. If at all there is a
case warranting award of death sentence, it is the present case. If the dreadfulness displayed by
the accused in committing the gang rape, unnatural sex, insertion of iron rod in the private parts
of the victim does not fall in the rarest of rare category, then one may wonder what else would
fall in that category. On these reasonings recorded by me, I concur with the majority in affirming
the death sentence awarded to the accused persons.
58) This Court has held that age of the accused or family background of the accused or lack of
criminal antecedents cannot be said to be the mitigating circumstance. It cannot also be
considered as mitigating circumstance, particularly taking into consideration, the nature of
heinous offence and cold and calculated manner in which it was committed by the accused
persons.104
59) Society's reasonable expectation is that deterrent punishment commensurate with the gravity
of the offence be awarded. When the crime is brutal, shocking the collective conscience of the
community, sympathy in any form would be misplaced and it would shake the confidence of
public in the administration of criminal-justice system. The Court must respond to thecry of the
101
Exhibit - II
102
Id.
103
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1174-1175 of 2019[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.7581-7582 of 2014)
104
Maharashtra [PurushottamDashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 652 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 326
24
society and to settle what would be a deterrent punishment for what was an apparently
abominable crime. 105
60) Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offences of abduction with intend to
commit rape and consequently murder has been committed by the appellant. The required chain
of circumstances has been established and the hypothesis presented by the respondent only point
out towards the guilt of the accused.
105
Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 19 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 334
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDAND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON‟BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED AND TO HOLD
1. That this appeal is not maintainable under Article 134(1) (c) of Constitution of Abibi.
2. That upheld the judgment pronounced by High Court of Moba .
3. That accused is guilty of sedition under section 124A of Indian Penal Code.
4. That accused is guilty of murder, rape & abduction under section 300, 375 & 362 of Indian
Penal Code.
AND
THAT THE COURT MAY PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT
THIS HON‟BLECOURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF justice, equity and good
conscience.
For this act of kindness, the respondent shall ever pray.
All of which is humbly submitted

(Counsels for Respondent)
26

Respondent SENT ANSAL

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent SENT ANSAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent SENT ANSAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANSAL UNIVERSITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ANSAL UNIVERSITY NATIONAL

TEAM CODE: - AU10

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ABIBI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. _ of 2020

APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 134(1) (C)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. ADIL KHAN …APPEALANT

UNION OF ABIBI …RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 2-3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... 5-6

I. THAT IS, THE APPEAL UNDER ART.134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE…………………………………….....… 7-10

1.1 THERE HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATION OF ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF

JUSTICE. ...................................................................................................... 7-8

1.2 THERE WILL BE WASTAGE OF TIME OF THE HONOURABLE COURT. 9

1.3 THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REVOKED……………………....…. 9

1.4 THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REVOKED........................................... 9-10

SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124A IPC...................................................... 10- 15.

2.1 ADIL’S BLOG BRING INTO HATRED TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT

ESTABLISHED BY LAW……………………………………………… 11-12

2.2 ADIL’S BLOG HAS CREATED THE PUBLIC DISORDER…………… 12-14

2.3 CONVICTION IS IN INCONFORMITY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL

COURT IS VALID……………………................................................……... 15-25

3.1 THERE IS REQUIRED CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ……………… 15-19

3.2 OFFENCES OF ABDUCTION, RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE

3.2.1 THERE IS REQUIRED INTENTION FOR THE ABDUCTION.19-21

3.2.2 RAPE HAS BEEN COMMITED BY THE APPELANT……… 21-22

3.2.3 HOMICIDE COMMITTED AGAINST THE VICTIM AMOUNTS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………. 26

AIR All India Report

Crpc. Criminal Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

u/s Under Section

Ipso facto By the very fact itself

Id. The same

U.P Uttar Pradesh

K.B King’s Bench

S.C.R Supreme Court Report

U.S United States

SLP Special Leave Petition

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

U.K United Kingdom

STATUTES & INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

BOOKS REFERRED & WEBSITES

illustration C, 08,(Professional Book Publishers, New Delhi, 2018)

Lexis Nexis, 2017)

99, (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2016 )

7. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, with a Foreword

8. Pillai, Criminal Law 1131( K.I.VibhuteEdn. 2009)

2. Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 4 SCC 393......................................................... 20

3. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 969………………………………….. 18