Memorial Appellant (Team B-4 Cdlu)

TEAM CODE: B-4
2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

OM STERLING GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

Page |1
TEAM CODE: B-4

2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
OM STERLING GLOBAL UNIVERSITY
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. …… OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
VICKY………………………………………………………………. APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF INDRA PRADESH………………………………… RESPONDENT
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’ABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

Page |2
INDEX
S. NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG NO.
I ABBREVIATIONS 3
II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5
III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
IV STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-11
V ISSUES INVOLVED 12
A) WHETHER MR. VICKY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE

CYBER BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY
ALIZA?
B) WHETHER THE AGE OF MR. VICKY WARRANTS

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR HIM, AND SHOULD HE
BE REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
C) WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. VICKY IS
JUSTIFIED AND LEGITIMATE?
D) WHETHER VICKY’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF
PRIVACY HAS BEEN BREACHED IN THE
INVESTIGATIONS AS HIS SYSTEM WAS LOOKED INTO
WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE?
WHETHER THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND?
VI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13-23
VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 24-36
VIII PRAYER 37

Page |3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVATIONS EXPANSION
AIR All India Report
Art. Article
U/A Under Article
U/S Under Section
Hon’ble Honorable
Ors. Others
S. No Serial Number
S/D Signed
SCC Supreme Court Case
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
v. Versus
No. Number
& And
FIR First Information Report
UOI Union Of India
W Witness

Page |4
INDEX OF AUTHORITES
A. BOOK REFERRED:
• INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860:
1. Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications,

Twentieth Edition (reprint) 2017.
2. K.D. GUAR, Indian Penal Code, Universal Publications, Eighth
Edition 2023.
3. Prof. N. V. Paranjape, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications.
• THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1897
1. Ratan Lal & DHIRAJLAL, 27TH Edition LEXIS NEXIS Publication.

2. Batuk Lal Central Law Agency.
B. STATUES:
• THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

• THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973
• THE INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
• THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1897
• THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
C. WEBSITE REFERRED:
• https://www.livelaw.in/
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in

Page |5
• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.scconline.com/
• https://www.ncpc.org
D. CASE LAW CITED:

i) SUPREME COURT CASES:
1. State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Shankarrao Chavan 2012 SCC8 106
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 10 SCC 2017
3. Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 12 SCC 548
4. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujarat and oths 2004 4 SCC 548
5. Ram Singh and oths v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) 2 SCC 158
6. Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur and oths (1988) 2 SCC 237
7. Selvi & Oths v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
8. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1
9. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870
10. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (2022)
11. Jitendra Singh @Babboo Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P (2020) SCC Online SC
1042
12. Subramanian Swamy vs Raju through Member Juvenile Justice (2014) 8 SCC
390
13. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs. State of Bihar (1958)
14. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine
Dis Crt (Del) 48, decided on 29-10-2022
15. Santosh V. State of Maharashtra S.L.P. (Criminal) N. 8439 of 2016)
16. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. S.C. 157 (1973)
ii) HIGH COURT CASES:

1. Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) – Allahbad HC.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Ved Prakash (2014) – Rajasthan HC.

Page |6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Intia has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 134(1) (c) of the
Constitution of India as follows:
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in 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.1
134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court
Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to
in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134-
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately
after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine,
as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the
nature referred to in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of article 133 or, as the case
may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134, may be given in respect of that case2.
1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1446285/
2

Page |7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ABSTRACT
In the coastal metropolitan city of Manii, the life was as fast and as tranquil as the tidal
waves. The Howart High School stood as a symbol of knowledge and community, the school
with a illustrious assembly of alumni and their achievements had been seeing constant growth
in its reputation across the Country of Intia. Though, on 14th of January, the school was
going to be get known for a criminal misdeed by one of its students against their fellow
schoolmate. As their paths converge in the hallowed halls of justice, the Supreme Court of
Intia grapples with a case that will test the boundaries of personal privacy and reshape the
contours of juvenile justice in an era where digital footprintsand emotional scars are indelibly
etched into the fabric of modern life.
PARTIES TO THE CASE: State of Indra Pradesh:
The state of Indra Pradesh is one of the largest state by geographical area and revenue in
Intia. The State is known for the development model it has brought forth, and the law and
order situation has been uptight leading to a tranquil state of being for the residents.
Victim/Prosecutrix:
A 19-year old girl studying at Howart High School, Ms. Aliza is the victim of the case.
Known for her intelligence, generosity, and compassionate behaviour, Ms. Aliza has been
selected as the School Prefect for the second time in the row. Ms. Aliza, since the incident,
has suffered distress owing to receiving some explicit and malicious images of herself,
leading her to pursue justice and inform about the incident to her parents, the police, and the
school authorities.
Mr. Vicky:
A 17-year-old student at Howart High School, possessed a mischievous charm that once drew
Ms. Aliza towards him, creating a bond that seemed unbreakable. Their friendship had
deteriorated after a heated argument six months ago. Mr. Vicky has been vehemently
refuting any charges being levelled against him and has claimed that his system was hacked.
One of his friends, Mr. Kartikey has provided in his witness that “Mr. Vicky is short-
tempered; though Vicky would not harm anyone, his temper-issues just left him disgruntled

Page |8
with people often breaking ties with them”.

Aliza’s parents: Ms. Aliza 's parents are deeply concerned about the explicit messages their
daughter received, and have taken action to seek justice on her behalf. They also are very
influential government servants. They filed a formal complaint with the local police, setting
the legal proceedings in motion.
These parties form the core of the moot proposition, with Ms. Aliza as the victim and Mr.
Vicky as the accused. The case revolves around allegations of cyberbullying, privacy
violations, and the legal implications for all involved parties.
THE INCIDENT: On 14th of January, Ms. Aliza‟s world came crashing down. On her social
media account on „Hecker‟, she received direct messages containing certain vile and explicit
images of herself. The images were apparently received from a fake account. The content was
not only derogatory but also a malevolent assault on her dignity, leaving her emotionally
scarred. On which she got distressed and informed her parents about the occurrence. Her
parents decided to approach the justice delivery system of the state and filed a criminal
complaint with the Manii Police Station.
In their initial probe, the police determined that the pictures are created through AI-
Technology. The Cyber Cell, on tracking the IP address of the computer system through
which they found out that the device belonged to one Mr. Vicky who was also a student in
the same high school. After which the incident was reported to the High School authorities as
Mr. Vicky was made an accused for the crime.
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES & INVESTIGATION:
Investigating Officer: Inspector Kapil Sharma

Witness 1: Saina, A mutual friend
Witness 2: Dr. Anish, Mental Health Councillor, Howart High School
Witness 3: Vinni, Tech Expert
Witness 4: Kartikey, A mutual friend
Aliza‟s and Vicky‟s Relation: Good friends till last September, Ms. Aliza and Mr. Vicky
were considered as good friends by their schoolmates and teachers alike. Having each other‟s
back, they both were thriving in their education. In last August, Ms. Aliza had received an
offer of undergraduate studies from Stephen University, situated abroad.
According to their mutual friend, Kartikey, Aliza‟s and Vicky‟s friendship started worsening

Page |9
after the said offer. In the evening after the said offer was received, Aliza and Vicky got into a
disagreement leading to altercation. This may have happened because Vicky had also applied
to same institution but did not get the offer. Though, ever since the altercation, they stopped
talking and Aliza stopped meeting the group, which led to Vicky being dismayed and thereby
blocking Aliza on all social media platforms and phone. Though, Vicky has been saying that
they were still well-wishers for each other and exchanged
pleasantries last month. Vicky, in his witness also stated that he would never do something of
this sort to any person whatsoever.
The Investigation: As the investigation deepened, suspicion gravitated towards Vicky. The
digital trail seemed to lead to his door, and the police promptly interrogated him. Vicky
asserted that his social media accounts were maliciously hacked, and that he was blameless in
the matter of the cyberbullying. He also asserted that some of his friends received unsolicited
texts, on which Mr. Kartikey seconded in his witness.
The case, replete with complexity, proceeded through the lower courts. The prosecutrix and
the State presented their arguments, witnesses, and evidence. The courts looked into all of
that and held Vicky to be the convict. The prosecution painted Vicky as the chief suspect,
pointing to the digital breadcrumbs that appeared to lead to his devices. Conversely, Vicky‟s
defense emphasized the hacking attempts on his accounts and the presence of malware,
casting doubt on his culpability. The case took a bewildering turn when the technology expert
testified that the perpetrator had garnered Aliza's personal details from her social media
interactions to concoct the explicit content. Though, no evidence conclusively provided that
Vicky was the real perpetrator.
INVESTIGATION TIMELINE:
January 14: Aliza receives explicit and malicious images via her social media accounts. She
informs about the incident to her parents, prompting them to get an FIR filed. Police recorded
Aliza‟s statement as FIR and initiated their investigation. Inspector Kapil Sharma is the
Investigating officer.
January 15: Inspector Sharma interviews Aliza to gather details about the explicit messages,
their impact on her, and any potential leads regarding the sender's identity. Aliza emotionally
recounts, "I felt violated and humiliated. Those messages shattered myself-esteem."
January 17: Witness 1, Saina, a friend of Aliza, provides a statement to Inspector Sharma.
Saina mentions a heated argument between Aliza and Vicky six months ago, suggesting a

P a g e | 10
possible motive. She states, "I remember Aliza and Vicky argued fiercely. It was intense, but
I never thought it would lead to something like this."On being asked whether she knows the
cause of the quarrel, she denied any such knowledge. Whereas she also informed that Ms.
Aliza may have staged the quarrel as she did such activities as other instances.
January 18: Inspector Sharma questions Vicky, the former friend of Aliza. Vicky vehemently
denies any involvement and claims his social media accounts were hacked. He asserts, "I
would never do something like that to Aliza. My accounts were compromised, and I've been
trying to figure it out." On being questioned about the argument, he asserted that a month
after the arguments happened, he had a
talk with Aliza where they resolved their disagreements but decided to not talk to each
other. They also did not tell their friends about such resolution of disagreement.
January 20: Aliza 's father states, "We cannot let this go. Our daughter's well-being is at
stake." On being questioned about the events that took place before the happening, he said
that Aliza had been receiving unsolicited texts from someone and she was concerned about
it. Though she never imagined that such an event might unfold.
January 23: Inspector Sharma visits Howart High School to interview staff and students,
trying to gather additional information about Aliza and Vicky relationship and any potential
witnesses to their arguments. He met Dr. Anish, who told him that Aliza and Vicky had
booked counselling sessions after their quarrel, Vicky was calm and decided to apply to other
places for studies abroad. Mr. Vicky, according to Dr. Anish, was very mature for his age. He
also added that Ms. Aliza was very bitter about the quarrel, though she agreed to resolve the
disagreement when Dr. Anish advised her to.
January 24: Dr. Anish was again summoned by Inspector Sharma, where Dr. Anish brought
his clinical records and informed that Vicky had been short of temper but also a thoughtful
person. Though, Ms. Aliza on the same day told to the police that the images she received
had some info that only Mr. Vicky was privy about. Though she could not give a detailed
account of what those details were.
January 24: Vicky‟s internet details were sought by Inspector Sharma without his knowledge,
and after gaining online access to his computer system Inspector Sharma extracted details of
Vicky‟s Pearl account, that was locally stored in Vicky‟s system. Mr. Vicky has accused Ms.
Aliza‟s parents to have utilized their position and stature to get the investigators to indulge
with him. On getting all the information, Inspector Sharma seeks the expertise of Witness 3,

P a g e | 11
Tech Expert Vinni. Vinni analyzed the digital trail and identified hacking attempts on Vicky's
social media accounts. She explains, "It appears that Vicky 's accounts were compromised
through a phishing attack. The hacker gained access to his personal information, allowing
them to send those messages."
January 26: Vinni elaborates on the breach, stating, “AI-generated content was used to create
those malicious images, and they had access to Aliza's personal data through her social media
interactions. It's a case of both hacking and privacy invasion."
January 28: Inspector Sharma compiles evidence and a statement gathered during the
investigation and submits the case file to the local prosecutor's office, recommending further
legal action against the possible perpetrator(s). He emphasizes the need for a thorough
examination of the privacy breach and the hacking aspect of the case.
Among other defences, Mr. Vicky also claimed before the court that his privacy was
breached when his system was broken into for getting evidences. The Investigating officer
should have asked Vicky for his personal details and hence the investigation is foul and
should be set aside.
As the matter grew ever more intricate, the question of Vicky 's age, just 17, loomed large.
Should he be treated as a juvenile or as an adult in the legal proceedings? This question
further complicated an already multifaceted case, engendering extensive debates within the
legal community and among the public. The local courts and the High Court of Indra Pradesh
denied treating Mr. Vicky as a juvenile and asserted that Mr. Vicky very well knew the
consequences of his act and should not be treated as a juvenile.
The city of Manii buzzed with discussion, and the nation watched as the case traversed the
lower courts. Finally, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Intia, a
momentous juncture that would not only shape the lives of Aliza and Vicky but also have far-
reaching implications for the evolving terrain of cyber bullying, juvenile justice, and digital
privacy.
The Subordinate and High Court decided in favour of Ms. Aliza and convicted the accused
under the sections of IPC and sections 66C and 66E of the IT Act, there by imposing a 10-
year sentence on Mr. Vicky. Aggrieved by which, the defence has approached the Supreme
Court of Intia, after receiving necessary sanction from the High Court of Indra Pradesh.
Now, as the case stands before the highest echelon of justice in the land, the Supreme Court
of Intia.

P a g e | 12
ISSUES INVOLVED
S. NO. ISSUES
I Whether Mr. Vicky can be held liable for the cyber bullying and
harassment endured by Aliza?
II Whether the age of Mr. Vicky warrants special consideration for him, and
should he be regarded as a juvenile or an adult in these legal proceedings?
III Whether the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is justified and legitimate?
IV Whether Vicky’s fundamental right of privacy has been breached in the

Investigations as his system was looked into without his permission and
knowledge? Whether the investigation should be set aside on the aforesaid
ground?

P a g e | 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE -1
I. Whether Mr. Vicky can be held liable for the cyber bullying and harassment
endured by Aliza?
No. Mr. Vicky cannot be liable for the cyber bullying and harassment endured by Aliza. All
the allegation made on Mr. Vicky are baseless, fact less and clearly misuse of Indian laws.
a) Legally define the term of Cyber bulling and harassment -

The National Crime Prevention Council defines of the growing phenomenon of cyber bullying
in the world. Cyber bullying takes place online and through text messages. Cyber bullies can
be classmates or strangers, but most often they know their victims.3
The term “Harassment” has not been specifically defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), However, harassment can be interpreted in terms of cruelty or torture.
Mr. Vicky vehemently denies any involvement in the cyber bullying and harassment of Aliza,
claiming that his social media accounts were compromised through phishing attack. The
respondent emphasizes the lack of conclusive evidence directly linking Mr. Vicky to the
creation and dissemination of the malicious images. Even respondent forgot that they had
good relationship in past.
b) Statements during Investigation period which has relevancy to prove the

allegations made on Mr. Vicky are fake and defamatory.
i) January 17, Point no.3 of investigation timeline W-1 Saina provide statement to IO about
heated argument between the parties even she told the “I remember Aliza and Vicky
argued fiercely” but later on being asked she denied about knowledge of quarrel.
ii) January 18, Point no, 4 of investigation timeline, Mr. Vicky stated “His accounts were
compromised and been trying to figure it out” even on January 24 point no. 8, W-3 Tech
Expert Vinni clearly said that “ It appears that Vicky’s account were compromised through a
phishing attack. The hacker gained access to his personal information, allowing them to send
those messages.”
3
https://www.ncpc.org/resources/cyberbullying/what-is-cyberbullying/

P a g e | 14
iii) January 23, Point no. 6 of the investigation timeline, W-2 Dr. Anish told to IO that Mr.
Vicky and Ms. Aliza mutually booked counselling sessions after their quarrel which shows
they had a good relationship and trying to resolve disputes even they agreed to resolve the
disagreement.
iv) January 24, Point no. 7 of the investigation timeline, in which Ms. Aliza gave statement to
Investigating officer that “the images she received had some info that only Mr. Vicky was
privy about” and Ms.Aliza refuse to give details of account to the IO. This statement clearly
showed that they previously shared a lot of things with each other even some were personal.
This statement made by the respondent had been ignored by the trail court which is enough
relevant for proving the false allegation of cyber bullying and harassment.
v) January 26, Point no. 9 of the investigation timeline, W-3 Tech expert vinni stating about
AI Content was used which means the sole base allegation made, the alleged content neither
secretly captured nor got by entice her.
c) Legal defects during trail.

i) Prosecution in the trail court misrepresent the facts and evidences to shift the burden of
proof and mislead the court.
According to section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 established the burden of proof. It
require that anyone ascertain a legal right or liability based on specific facts must prove thus
fact. Thereby assignee the burden of proof to the person making the claim.4
In the Case of :
1. State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Shankarrao Chavan 2012 SCC 8 106:
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
ii) Unfair examination of witnesses. W-1 Saina and W-3Tech Expert Vinni’s statement not
recorded fairly.
In the Case of:
1. Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 12 SCC 548:
4
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-
data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700&section
Id=38909&sectionno=101&orderno=115&orgactid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700

P a g e | 15
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair and effective cross-examination in criminal
proceedings.

P a g e | 16
ISSUE – II
II. Whether the age of Mr. Vicky warrants special consideration for him, and
Despite the allegations against Mr. Vicky, his age of 17 which falls in the definition of a child
which is defined under Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children)
Act 2015, as a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Section 2(13) “child in
conflict with law” means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and
who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of offence5
a) Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has
completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary
assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is
not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the
consequences of the alleged offence.6
As Mr. Vicky’s age falls under the limit of Juvenile and still he is school going kid leaves in
a Metropolitan City of Manii. The Howart High School which is reputed school across the
country of Intia in which the he going for studies. As comparison of the normal cities and
rapidly growing metropolitan cities, something’s are common in metropolitan cities but the
same things are not common in small cities. For example; Relationships, Technologies,
Parties and more. Same in this case, due to early advancement in technology and less gender
gap Mr. Vicky become physical and mentally mature in premature age but even after the
5
6
data?actid=AC_CEN_13_14_000010_201602_1517807328168&sectionId=12735&sectionno=15&orderno=15

P a g e | 17
maturity he cannot understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstance because
things are common in their environment he live. Therefore, Mr. Vicky warrants special
consideration in the legal proceedings for reformation. As a minor, Mr. Vicky may not fully
comprehend the gravity of his actions or the legal consequences thereof. Therefore, he should
be treated as a juvenile and afforded the protections and rehabilitative measures typically
associated with juvenile justice systems.

P a g e | 18
ISSUE-III
III. Whether the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is justified and legitimate?
No. The penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky, a 10-year sentence is not justified and legitimate. It is
excessive and disproportionate to his alleged offense. His age is just 17 and 10 years sentence
exclude the scope of reformation. Considering his age and the lack of definitive evidence
implicating him in the cyber bullying, a more lenient punishment or alternative sentencing
should be considered by the court. Justice and fair trail is somewhere missing in decision
made by JJ boards, Children court and by the high court. Main factors were unseen by the
Trial Court.
Penalty imposed under sections are:
1. According to the section 66C of the Information and Technology Act 2000-
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.7
2. According to the section 66E of the Information and Technology Act 2000-
Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private
area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of
that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with
fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.8
Explaintion- For the purposes of this section--
(a) transmit means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a
person or persons;
(b) capture, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any
means;
(c) private area means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, *[pubic area], buttocks or
female breast:
(d) publishes means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available
for public;
7
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1999
8

P a g e | 19
(e) under circumstances violating privacy means circumstances in which a person can have a
reasonable expectation that—
(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his
private area was being captured; or
(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of
whether that person is in a public or private place.
3. According to the section 354C of the IPC 1860-
Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in
circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by
the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such
image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1- For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching
carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in
underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of
a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2- Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to
their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such
dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.9
4. According to the section 354D of the IPC 1860-

(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking
9
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=397

P a g e | 20
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves
that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of
stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by
any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to
fine.10
5. According to the section 309 of the IPC 1860-
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound
or gesture, 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, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine.11
6. According to the Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. Evidence may be given in any suit
or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts
as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.12
7. According to the section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

It describes about the relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts which,
though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
10
data?abv=null&statehandle=null&actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=398&orgact
id=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688
11
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=573#:~:text=%2D%2DWhoever%2C%20
being%20related%20to,not%20be%20less%20than%20one
12

P a g e | 21
transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places.
Illustration (d) - The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A.
The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a
relevant fact.13
13
data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700&sectio
nId=38801&sectionno=6&orderno=6&orgactid=AC_CEN_3_20_00034_187201_1523268871700

P a g e | 22
ISSUE-IV
IV. Whether Vicky’s fundamental right of privacy has been breached in the
ground?
Mr. Vicky's fundamental right to privacy was breached during the investigation. On January
24, Point no. 8 of the investigating timeline. Even after Mr. Vicky cooperating the
investigating process conducting by IO. Mr. Vicky’s internet details were sought by IO
without his knowledge and after gaining online access to his computer system IO extracted
details of Vicky’s Pearl account forcefully. Even without giving any notice broke his system
and accessed without his knowledge or consent. The investigation should be set aside on the
ground of breach of privacy when Mr. Vicky’s System was broken into for getting evidence
without his knowledge, it is violate of both the fundamental and human rights of individuals.
Art 20(3) in Constitution of India:
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.14
In the Case of:
Dis Crt (Del) 48, decided on 29-10-2022.
The Court held that the present application of the CBI seeking password/User ID of the
computer system and Tally Software of the accused is dismissed as the accused cannot be
compelled to give such information and, in this regard, he is protected by Article 20(3) as
well as Section 161(2) of CrPC. Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by
Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency (Police) to
seek password (user ID) of the computer system seized from the accused along with password
of a Tally Software which was being used by the accused in the said computer system, Naresh
Kumar Laka, J., held that the accused cannot be compelled to give such information and in
this regard, he is protected by Article 20(3) under the Constitution of India as well as Section
161(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the IO is within his right to access the
data of the computer system and its software which were seized from the accused with the
14

P a g e | 23
help of specialized agency or person at the risk of being accused of loss of data.15
Regardless of the severity of the allegations against him, Mr. Vicky is entitled to due process
and protection of his privacy rights. The investigation should be set aside on the grounds of
privacy infringement, as the evidence obtained through unauthorized access may be deemed
inadmissible in court.
15
https://www.scconline.com/delhi-court-compelling-accused-to-give-his-system-password-to-io-
police-violates-article-203-and-s-1612-crpc/

P a g e | 24
ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE
ISSUE-I
I) Whether Mr. Vicky can be held liable for the cyber bullying and harassment
endured by Aliza?
No. Mr. Vicky cannot be liable for the cyber bullying and harassment endured by Aliza. All
the allegation made on Mr. Vicky are baseless, fact less and clearly misuse of Indian laws.
a. Legally define the term of Cyber bulling and harassment -
The National Crime Prevention Council defines of the growing phenomenon of cyber bullying
in the world. Cyber bullying takes place online and through text messages. Cyber bullies can
be classmates or strangers, but most often they know their victims.16
The term “Harassment” has not been specifically defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), However, harassment can be interpreted in terms of cruelty or torture.
Mr. Vicky vehemently denies any involvement in the cyber bullying and harassment of Aliza,
claiming that his social media accounts were compromised through phishing attack. The
respondent emphasizes the lack of conclusive evidence directly linking Mr. Vicky to the
creation and dissemination of the malicious images. Even respondent forgot that they had
good relationship in past.
b. Statements during Investigation period which has relevancy to prove the
allegations made on Mr. Vicky are fake and defamatory.
i) January 17, Point no.3 of investigation timeline W-1 Saina provide statement to IO about
heated argument between the parties even she told the “I remember Aliza and Vicky argued
fiercely” but later on being asked she denied about knowledge of quarrel.
ii) January 18, Point no, 4 of investigation timeline, Mr. Vicky stated “His accounts were
compromised and been trying to figure it out” even on January 24 point no. 8, W-3 Tech
Expert Vinni clearly said that “ It appears that Vicky’s account were compromised through a
phishing attac. The hacker gained access to his personal information, allowing them to send
those messages.”
iii) January 23, Point no. 6 of the investigation timeline, W-2 Dr. Anish told to IO that Mr.
Vicky and Ms. Aliza mutually booked counselling sessions after their quarrel which shows
16
https://www.ncpc.org/resources/cyberbullying/what-is-cyberbullying/

P a g e | 25
they had a good relationship and trying to resolve disputes even they agreed to resolve the
disagreement.
iv) January 24, Point no. 7 of the investigation timeline, in which Ms. Aliza gave statement to
Investigating officer that “the images she received had some info that only Mr. Vicky was
privy about” and Ms.Aliza refuse to give details of account to the IO. This statement clearly
showed that they previously shared a lot of things with each other even some were personal.
This statement made by the respondent had been ignored by the trail court which is enough
relevant for proving the false allegation of cyber bullying and harassment.
v) January 26, Point no. 9 of the investigation timeline, W-3 Tech expert vinni stating about
AI Content was used which means the sole base allegation made, the alleged content neither
secretly captured nor got by entice her.
c. Legal defects during trail.
i) Prosecution in the trail court misrepresent the facts and evidences to shift the burden of
proof and mislead the court. Even the electronic evidences tried to be tempered by IO during
investigation by getting access of suspected device without any tech expert or without any
notice. The circumstantial evidences not corroborating the statement against Mr. Vicky.
According to section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 established the burden of proof. It
require that anyone ascertain a legal right or liability based on specific facts must prove thus
fact. Thereby assignee the burden of proof to the person making the claim.17
In the Case of :
1. State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Shankarrao Chavan (2012) SCC 8 106:
Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
ii) Unfair examination of witnesses. W-1 Saina and W-3Tech Expert Vinni’s statement not
recorded fairly.
In the Case of:
1. Babulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 12 SCC 548:
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair and effective cross-examination in criminal
proceedings.
2. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and oths v. State of Gujarat and oths (2004) 4 SCC 158:
17

P a g e | 26
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair trail and the right to confront withnesses in
criminal proceedings.
3. Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur and oths (1998) 3 SCC 237:
Supreme Court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support the testimony of
witnesses in criminal cases.
4. Ram Kishan Singh v. Another v. Col. Ram Singh (1985) 2 SCC 139:
Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence must be complete and consistent with the
guilt of the accused beyong any reasonable doubt.
5. Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. (2019) CRI LJ 4811 AIR:
Allahabad High Court highlighted the need for clear and convincing evidence to establish
guilt in cases involving cyber offences.
6. State of Rajasthan v. Ved Prakash (2014) CRI LJ 1463 (RAJ):
Rajasthan High Court highlighted the importance of preserving the chain of custody of
electronic evidence to ensure its admissibility in court.

P a g e | 27
ISSUE-II
II) Whether the age of Mr. Vicky warrants special consideration for him, and
Despite the allegations against Mr. Vicky, his age of 17 which falls in the definition of a child
which is defined under Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children)
Act 2015, as a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years. Section 2(13) “child in
conflict with law” means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and
who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of offence18
a) Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
(I)In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has
completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary
assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-
section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is
not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the
consequences of the alleged offence.19
As Mr. Vicky’s age falls under the limit of Juvinile and still he is school going kid leaves in a
Metropolitan City of Manii. The Howart High School which is reputed school across the
country of Intia in which the he going for studies. As comparison of the normal cities and
rapidly growing metropolitan cities, something’s are common in metropolitan cities but the
same things are not common in small cities. For example; Relationships, Technologies,
Parties and more. Same in this case, due to early advancement in technology and less gender
gap Mr. Vicky become physical and mentally mature in premature age but even after the
maturity he cannot understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstance because
18
19
data?actid=AC_CEN_13_14_000010_201602_1517807328168&sectionId=12735&sectionno=15&orderno=15

P a g e | 28
things are common in their environment he live. Therefore, Mr. Vicky warrants special
consideration in the legal proceedings for reformation. As a minor, Mr. Vicky may not fully
comprehend the gravity of his actions or the legal consequences thereof. Therefore, he should
be treated as a juvenile and afforded the protections and rehabilitative measures typically
associated with juvenile justice systems.
b) Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 role in India:
There have been multiple initiatives in India to change the criminal justice system, especially
with regard to juvenile justice. Instead of focusing on punishment for young offenders, the JJ
Act, places more of an emphasis on rehabilitation and social reintegration. As well as
establishing juvenile justice boards and appointing child welfare officers, The Act also
outlines child friendly process and procedures.
c) The effect of treating a juvenile as an adult can have several implications:
1. Legal Consequences like Sentencing and Criminal Record:
If a juvenile is treated as an adult, they may face the same criminal penalties as an adult,
including imprisonment in an adult correctional facility. Being treated as an adult may result
in a permanent criminal record, which can have long-term consequences for education,
employment, and other aspects of life.
2. Impact on Rehabilitiaon:
Juvenile justice systems typically focus on rehabilitation and education. When treated as an
adult, juveniles may have limited access to rehabilitation and educational programs designed
for their age group.
3. Harsher Punishment:
Adult sentences can be more severe than juvenile sentences. Where Maximum Statutory
Punishment under JJ Act is 3 years and for adult to goes upto punishment of death: Juveniles
may be less equipped to handle the challenges of the adult correctional system.
4. Psychological Impact:
Juveniles may not be emotionally or psychologically mature enough to cope with the stresses
of adult imprisonment. This can have lasting effects on their mental well-being.
5. Potential for Recidivism:
Placing juveniles in adult facilities may expose them to more hardened criminals and increase
the risk of reoffending upon release.

P a g e | 29
Treating Mr. Vicky as an adult would contravene the spirit of juvenile justice and deny him
the opportunity for rehabilitation and reform.
Case Laws:
1. Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 870:
wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the aspect of child psychology and thus stresses on
need to conduct a meticulous psychological evaluation where child in conflict with law is
treated differently than adult in conflict with law. The Supreme Court had also expressed the
need to formulate guidelines to assist the JJ Board while making preliminary assessment
under Section 15 of the JJ Act....
Court noted the following four determinants that the guidelines deal with to conduct the
preliminary assessment:
1. physical capacity of the child to commit alleged offence;
2. mental capacity of the child to commit alleged offence;
3. the circumstances in which the child allegedly committed the offence;
4. and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence.
The Court also explained that the facts of the case must be dealt with to understand the
circumstances in which the child allegedly committed the offence and not merely the
immediate circumstances of the offence itself, but also the other circumstances which led to
the immediate circumstances and finally consider the ability to understand the consequence
of the alleged offence.
2. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (2022):
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles of juvenile justice and emphasized the need for
individualized treatment of juvenile offenders based on their age and circumstances.

P a g e | 30
ISSUE- III
III) Whether the penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky is justified and legitimate?
No. The penalty imposed on Mr. Vicky, a 10-year sentence is not justified and legitimate. It is
excessive and disproportionate to his alleged offense. His age is just 17 and 10 years sentence
exclude the scope of reformation. Considering his age and the lack of definitive evidence
implicating him in the cyber bullying, a more lenient punishment or alternative sentencing
should be considered by the court. Justice and fair trail is somewhere missing in decision
made by JJ boards, Children court and by the high court. Main factors were unseen by the
Trial Court.
1. Vicky’s age is just 17 and still he is a school going child.
2. Vicky’s living conditions. He lives in metropolitan area.
3. Vicky’s good relationship with respondent Aliza. They even good talk’s month before
incident. Even respondent stated that they shared personal and private information with each
other.
4. Mr. Vicky’s account was compromised by hacking attempts.
5. Images created with using of Artificial Intelligence.
This comparison showed that "AI or Not" was the most correct tool, scoring 97.14%.
"Illuminarty" came in second with a score of 70.95%, and "Maybe AI Art Detector" came in
third with a score of 53.81%. Based on how well each tool finds images, this graph makes it
easy to see which one is the most accurate. It shows AI is not 100% accurate.20
5. Those deep fake images and contents only send to the respondent nothing in the evidences
and statement mentioned that images and content viral on internet and shared with other
comates.
6. In the Surrounding circumstance and investigation. Mr. Vicky asserts that some of his
friends received unsolicited texts. But nothing the evidences and statement revealed that the
same alleged content shared with Mr. vicky’s friends.
Penalty imposed under sections are:

1. According to the section 66C of the Information and Technology Act 2000-
20
https://originality.ai/blog/do-ai-image-detectors-work-accuracy-study

P a g e | 31
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.21
2. According to the section 66E of the Information and Technology Act 2000-
Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private
area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of
that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with
fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.22
Explaintion- For the purposes of this section--
(a) transmit means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a
person or persons;
(b) capture, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any
means;
(c) private area means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, *[pubic area], buttocks or
female breast:
(d) publishes means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available
for public;
(e) under circumstances violating privacy means circumstances in which a person can have a
reasonable expectation that—
(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his
private area was being captured; or
(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of
whether that person is in a public or private place.
3. According to the section 354C of the IPC 1860-
Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in
circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by
the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such
image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of
21
22

P a g e | 32
either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1- For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching
carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in
underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of
a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2- Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to
their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such
dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.23
4. According to the section 354D of the IPC 1860-

(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves
that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of
stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by
any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment
23
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=397

P a g e | 33
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to
fine.24
5. According to the section 509 of the IPC 1860-
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound
or gesture, 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, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, and also with fine.25
6. According to the Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts. Evidence may be given in any suit
or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts
as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.26
7. According to the section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
It describes about the relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. Facts which,
though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same
transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different
times and places.
Illustration (d) - The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A.
The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a
relevant fact.27
Case Laws:-
1. Many times the minors age group of 16-18 comes into limelight.
Jitendra Singh @Babboo Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P (2020) SCC Online SC
1042:
24
data?abv=null&statehandle=null&actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=398&orga
ctid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688
25
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=573#:~:text=%2D%2DWhoever%2C%
20being%20related%20to,not%20be%20less%20than%20one
26
27

P a g e | 34
This case also dealt with the determination of age under the Juvenile Justice Act. The
Supreme Court reiterated that the benefit of being considered a juvenile must be extended
even if the age determination is made after the accused is convicted.
2. Subramanian Swamy vs Raju through Member Juvenile Justice (2014) 8 SCC
390:
This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice Act, arguing that the
age of criminal responsibility should be lowered. The Supreme Court upheld the Act,
affirming that all individuals under the age of 18 are to be considered juveniles.
3. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs. State of Bihar (1958)
The Supreme Court of India observed that the reformative theory of punishment is based on
the belief that human nature is capable of reform and that the object of punishment is not to
inflict retribution but to reform the offender. The court held that the ultimate aim of
punishment is to transform the offender into a useful member of society and that the
reformative approach should be given due consideration in sentencing. “The idea of
punishment has to be reformative,” the Supreme Court bench said, adding, “We do not want
to punish persons. They must be reformed and sent back to society. Any policy must consider
this aspect of reformation in it.”

P a g e | 35
ISSUE-IV
IV) Whether Vicky’s fundamental right of privacy has been breached in the
ground?
Mr. Vicky's fundamental right to privacy was breached during the investigation. On January
24, Point no. 8 of the investigating timeline. Even after Mr. Vicky cooperating the
investigating process conducting by IO. Mr. Vicky’s internet details were sought by IO
without his knowledge and after gaining online access to his computer system IO extracted
details of Vicky’s Pearl account forcefully. Even without giving any notice broke his system
and accessed without his knowledge or consent. The investigation should be set aside on the
ground of breach of privacy when Mr. Vicky’s System was broken into for getting evidence
without his knowledge, it is violate of both the fundamental and human rights of individuals.
1. Art 20(3) in Constitution of India:
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.28
2. Indian Evidence Act, Section 5, 1872:
The only criteria regarding the admissibility of evidence in the Indian court of law is
“relevance”. Section 5 of the Act with Article 20, which prohibits self-incrimination and
Article 21(right to privacy). This will allow for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in
the court.
In the Case of:

Dis Crt (Del) 48, decided on 29-10-2022.
The Court held that the present application of the CBI seeking password/User ID of the
computer system and Tally Software of the accused is dismissed as the accused cannot be
compelled to give such information and, in this regard, he is protected by Article 20(3) as
well as Section 161(2) of CrPC. Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by
Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency (Police) to
seek password (user ID) of the computer system seized from the accused along with password
28

P a g e | 36
of a Tally Software which was being used by the accused in the said computer system, Naresh
Kumar Laka, J., held that the accused cannot be compelled to give such information and in
this regard, he is protected by Article 20(3) under the Constitution of India as well as Section
161(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, the IO is within his right to access the
data of the computer system and its software which were seized from the accused with the
help of specialized agency or person at the risk of being accused of loss of data.29
2. Santosh V. State of Maharashtra S.L.P. (Criminal) N. 8439 of 2016)
The Supreme Court held that merely because the accused did not confess, it could not be said
that the applicant was not cooperating with the investigation.
3. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. S.C. 157 (1973)
Though illegally obtained evidence is admissible, the value of such evidence may be affected
as it was ruled that improperly obtained evidence will be analysed with due caution by the
court.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, SCC 10 2017
Puttaswamy has ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
Indian Constitution. This right is enforceable against the state subject to reasonable
restrictions. With the invocation of privacy as a fundamental right under Section 21 of the
Indian constitution.
5. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Supreme Court emphasized the need for safeguards in the collection and admissibility of
evidence obtained through technological means, including digital evidence.
Regardless of the severity of the allegations against him, Mr. Vicky is entitled to due process
and protection of his privacy rights. The investigation should be set aside on the grounds of
privacy infringement, as the evidence obtained through unauthorized access may be deemed
inadmissible in court.
29
https://www.scconline.com/delhi-court-compelling-accused-to-give-his-system-password-to-io-police-
violates-article-203-and-s-1612-crpc/

P a g e | 37
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given
and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed before the Hon‘ble Court to adjudge and declare:
I. SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION UPHELD BY HIGH COURT.
II. CONSIDER THE AGE OF APPELLANT AS JUVINILE.
And any other relief that this Hon‘ble Court

may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
Counsel for Appellant.

Memorial Appellant (Team B-4 Cdlu)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial Appellant (Team B-4 Cdlu)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Memorial Appellant (Team B-4 Cdlu)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: B-4

2ND INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

TEAM CODE: B-4

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INTIA

STATE OF INDRA PRADESH………………………………… RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’ABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

S. NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG NO.

II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

IV STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-11

A) WHETHER MR. VICKY CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE

B) WHETHER THE AGE OF MR. VICKY WARRANTS

VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 24-36

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

• INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860:

1. Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications,

• THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1897

1. Ratan Lal & DHIRAJLAL, 27TH Edition LEXIS NEXIS Publication.

• THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

D. CASE LAW CITED:

ii) HIGH COURT CASES:

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

with people often breaking ties with them”.

Investigating Officer: Inspector Kapil Sharma

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

IV Whether Vicky’s fundamental right of privacy has been breached in the

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

a) Legally define the term of Cyber bulling and harassment -

b) Statements during Investigation period which has relevancy to prove the

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

c) Legal defects during trail.

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

4. According to the section 354D of the IPC 1860-

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

7. According to the section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANT

Penalty imposed under sections are: