11914242

Roll no. 1914242

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

…………. PROSECUTION

Versus

SINCHAN

……….DEFENCE

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENCE

1
 21914242

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statement of Jurisdiction 5

Statement of Facts 6

Statement of issues 7

Summary of Arguments 8

Arguments Advanced 9

Prayer 17

2
 31914242

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Resp. Respondent
Eng. engineer
Software software
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
v. Versus
AIR All India Reporter
PW Prosecution witness
LR Legal report
Anr. Another
Hon’ble Honourable
SCC Supreme court cases
SCRs Supreme court report
PW Prosecutor Witness

3
 41914242

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED:

 Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144

 Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
 State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh AIR 1975 SC 258
 Lal Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1984 SC 226
 Ramekin Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36

LAWS REFERRED:

 Bare Act, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

 Constitution of India
 The Information Technology Act, 2000
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

LEGAL DATABASE:

 ALL INDIA REPORTER

 SCC ONLINE
 MANUPATRA

4
 51914242

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate first class has jurisdiction to try the instant case
under section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Courts by which offences are triable. Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-

(a) Any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), may be tried by-

(i) The High Court, or

(ii) The Court of Session, or

(iii) Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable;

(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such
law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by-

(i) The High Court, or

(ii) Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable.

5
 61914242

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In the case of People v. Sinchan (A1) and others, the accused individuals stand charged
with engaging in heinous crimes involving the abduction, sexual exploitation, and
distribution of photographs and videos of young girls/ladies without their consent.
2. The accused Sinchan (A1) is a software engineer in Amma Puram (Chemnagar) and owns
an institute called 'Special Software Solutions.' Financially sound, he possesses a farm
house in Kaverinagar and a guest house on lease at Vijaynagar. Sinchan had employed
Masao (A2) as a technician, Naruto (A3) as a driver, and Suga (A4) as a guard to work at
his institute. Together, they are accused of procuring young girls/ladies from nearby areas
with the assistance of Sijuka (P.W.2), who was a housemaid.
3. The victims were unlawfully detained at the aforementioned farm house and guest house
between 2017 and 2020. During this period, Sinchan (A1) and his accomplices subjected
the girls to various sexual activities against their will and without their consent. Person
Xiang (P.W.1) and his male employees were also involved in these abhorrent activities.
4. To coerce compliance, Sinchan (A1) would use his licensed revolver to threaten the girls
if they refused to engage in such activities. Furthermore, the accused recorded
photographs and videos of these sexual encounters.
5. Compounding the severity of the offenses, Sinchan (A1) would share these explicit
materials with his friend KimJong (A5) settled in the USA. KimJong (A5) then proceeded
to upload these images and videos on pornographic websites for commercial gain,
perpetuating the exploitation of the victims.
6. Attempts by Xiang (P.W.1) to put an end to these criminal activities were met with
threats to his parents' lives and he was forcibly compelled to partake in the sexual abuse
of the procured girls.
7. Upon discovering that the explicit content was being publicly viewed, Xiang (P.W.1)
advised by friends, lodged a complaint at the local police station in Kaverinagar. This led

6
 71914242

to the arrest of Sinchan (A1), Masao (A2), Naruto (A3), and Suga (A4), resulting in
widespread news coverage in the village of Chemnagar.
8. In response to the arrest of the other accused, Sijuka (P.W.2) surrendered to the local
police. During the investigation, she made a confession before the Magistrate (Judicial),
accepting her involvement as she was blackmailed and threatened by Sinchan (A1), who
possessed nude pictures of her. Fearful of the publication of these pictures, she felt
coerced into aiding A1 in procuring girls/ladies.
9. The prosecution has presented corroborative evidence, including material documents, to
substantiate the charges against the accused individuals. All the prosecution witnesses
have provided testimonies supporting the allegations, establishing the guilt of the accused
in these heinous crimes.

7
 81914242

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SINCHAN IS GUILTY OF OFENCES UNDER

SECTION 354, 370, 375, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 67A OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?

2. WHETHER PW1 AND PW2 CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR TENDER OF PARDON

UNDER SECTION 306, OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973?

8
 91914242

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SINCHAN IS GUILTY OF OFENCES UNDER

SECTION 354, 370, 375, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 67A OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?
It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the accused, Sinchan A1 is not solely
guilty of the offences mentioned under section 354, 370A, 375, 506 of IPC and 67A of the IT
act, nor is there any direct evidence to link him with the fact that he was in his right mind
while committing the alleged offences, which discreetly implies that his mental condition was
not stable and he unintentionally committed offences of such degree. Furthermore, he neither
had the intention nor the motive to commit the alleged offences and therefore any
allegation/evidence directed towards him does not corroborate with the offences.

2. WHETHER PW1 AND PW2 CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR TENDER OF PARDON

UNDER SECTION 306, OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that Xiang hereinafter referred as PW1 and
Sijuka hereinafter referred as PW2 shall not be considered for tender of pardon under section
306 of criminal procedure, 1973 as the facts conspicuously indicate that they were equally
involved in the offences as alleged by the State. And that the grant of Tender of Pardon shall
not be granted to the PWs as it will lead to grave injustice towards the Accused.

9
 101914242

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-I

WHETHER THE ACCUSED SINCHAN IS GUILTY OF OFENCES UNDER

SECTION 354, 375, 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 67 A AND B OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that Sinchan (hereinafter to be referred to
as ‘A1’) is not guilty of offence under section 354, 375, 506 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred as IPC) and section 67A and B of information technological act, 2000
(hereinafter referred as IT Act). In the matter at hand, it has been wrongfully alleged that the
accused has committed the alleged offences in stable and healthy state of mind.

As can be directly linked through the mentioned facts that Sinchan (A1) was a victim of some
sort of mental disorder and succumbing to such disorder, he committed such acts. It can be
clearly inferred that the persons employed by him i.e., Masao, Naruto and Suga were well
aware of this condition and perhaps for their own interest abetted him to commit such acts.
As the facts also indicate that Sinchan’s employees Masao (a technician), Naruto (Driver),
Suga (Guard) used to procure young girls/ ladies from nearby areas with the help of Sijuka
(House maid). Hence, it submitted that there was no sort of direct link of criminal force used
by Sinchan himself, rather all the facts indicated that the employees have played the role of
abettor here.

On the grounds of the statutory provision mentioned in IPC, in placing the elements of
abetment u/s:

Sec 107 of IPC provides for Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

i. Instigates any person to do that thing; or

ii. Engages with one or more e other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing
of that thing.

10
 111914242

Sec 108 of IPC provides for Abettor- A person abets an offence, who abets either the
commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if
committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or
knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1.—the abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2.—to constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Wherefore in the light of above stated provisions it is contended before this Hon’ble court
that A1 cannot be held solely liable for the alleged offences. Therefore, it is contended that
the A1 did not commit the alleged offence with malice intention as well as he did not have
independent control over the whole act of wrong.

Hence, it is evident from the cited facts that the employees working under him instigated the
whole act for their own selfish motives. It is well evident from the fact that A1 never
procured girls himself rather it was his three employees who procured these girls with the
help of Sijuka (hereinafter referred s PW2) who facilitated the whole act and then fabricated
whole incident in her favour in front of the Hon’ble court. The same can be inferred from the
confession made by Xiang (hereinafter referred as PW1), who himself was involved in the
sexual activities being conducted .Thus it is evident that A1 was involved in the alleged act as
a result of his mental condition, the three others were equally engaged as well as instigated &
facilitated the performance of such activities at the site in question in a sound and stable
mind.

Furthermore, it is submitted before this Hon’ble court that the elements of abetment are
clearly visible here. Since, A1 comes from a very financially sound background, is a software
engineer, who had an institute, is financially sound, have a farmhouse & a guest house. Thus,
is very evident that for him to commit such offence for monetary purpose or malice intention
is completely ruled out. That any allegation which points towards A1 committing the act
intentionally shall also be ruled out.

Whether or not sinchan liable for section 67A of IT Act 2000?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that sinchan cannot be stand wholly liable
for publishing of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. It evident

11
 121914242

from the given fact that he was not the only person who violated the provision of section
67A, the only liability arises upon him is of transmitting the explicit content that to under
influence to his best friend KimJong who without any knowledge of A1, used the content for
his personal gain.

It is well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the court
must satisfy itself that various circumstanced in the chain of evidence should be established clearly
and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of
the accused.1 When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly satisfied of
the following three things:2

i. The circumstances, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have fully been
established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt.
ii. The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused.
iii. The circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation on any reasonable
hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.

Hence, the prosecution fails to pinpoint how the accused is solely responsible for liability u/s 67A of
IT act, 2000. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that A1 cannot be held
solely and wholly liable & guilty in the present matter.

1
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
2
Mahmood v. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69

12
 131914242

ISSUE-2

WHETHER PW1 AND PW2 CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR TENDER OF PARDON

UNDER SECTION 306, OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that Xiang hereinafter referred as PW1 and
Sijuka hereinafter referred as PW2 shall not be considered for tender of pardon under section
306 of criminal procedure, 1973.

It is submitted that as the facts conspicuously indicate that they were equally involved in the
offences as alleged by the State after taking full disclosure of facts and events that took place.
The tender of pardon by granting tender of pardon to PW1 and PW2 the court would cause
grave injustice towards the parties accused. The matter here is conspicuously indicative of the
facts by anyone them can amount to fabrication of evidence. For the court to consider them
for tender of pardon the court must consider the background of the party whether the party
has a solid alibi or not and herein under there is no alibis who would corroborate their
statements. And so the party can easily fabricate the evidence. Thus, the court here cannot
grant the tender of pardon and if in case court grant the tender of pardon to PW1 & PW2, so
here the question arises that on what basis the tender has been granted because parties are
equally involved in the crime and when they are accomplish to it, it is not necessary to
disclose the all material facts of the case rather fabrication of facts in their favour is highly
possible.

Hence, it is submitted before this Hon’ble court to thoroughly examine the case and find
whether to give tender of pardon or not otherwise there is no necessity to give tender of
pardon because that would be in the grave violation of Natural Justice stating that both the
parties should be given equal chances to be heard in court and without hearing the parties, the
tender of pardon should not be given.

Whether the confession made by PW1 & PW2 stands reliable?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the confession made by PW1 & 2 is
unreliable as it is of low evidentiary value and is weak evidence.

PW 1 & 2’s confession cannot be seen as reliable as it is well evident from the above cited facts that
both PW1 & PW2 acted as co- accused. Therefore, they shall be considered as a very weak form of
evidence which is on a very low footing3, the reason for this scrutiny and caution is being:

3
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh AIR 1975 SC 258

13
 141914242

i. Has motive to shift guilt from himself.

ii. Is immoral person likely to commit perjury on occasion?
iii. Hopes for pardon or has secured it, and so favours the prosecution.4

The apex court in Baal Sheik v. State has held that confessions of a co- accused cannot be used
against the accused unless the Court is morally satisfied on other evidence that the accused is guilty.
In the immediate matter before this court we can see that all of the aforementioned 3 principles
could easily be true as PW1 & 2 is of admitted ill repute and it would be ideal for him to shift the
blame from himself to the accused thus making Accused seem like the mastermind of this entire
plan.

Therefore, In light of all the aforementioned arguments, the accused humbly submits that there
exists reasonable doubt and hence he should be tried fairly for the alleged crime he is being charged
off. A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt
based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.5

4
Lal Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1984 SC 226
5
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 Sc 36

14
 151914242

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to:

a) Give due consideration in considering the facts of the case and accordingly decide the
liability of the parties involved.
b) Not grant the tender of pardon to PW1 & PW2 respectively.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: S/d___________

Date: (Counsel for the Defence)

15