Moot Court

Introduction:
I am the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, State of Anarka.

May I have the permission to address this Hon’ble Court as Your Lordship /
Your Ladyship?
May I have the permission to present the facts of the case followed by the
Issues?
Facts:
1. Claim of Self-Defence: The police argue that the four accused tried to
escape and attacked the officers during a crime scene reconstruction. The
police responded by firing in self-defence.
2. Prevention of Escape: The police were attempting to prevent the
accused from escaping. The accused were considered dangerous, having
been involved in a brutal rape and murder, and posed a risk to public
safety.
3. Immediate Threat: The police claim the situation was dangerous and
escalated quickly. They acted to neutralize an immediate threat to their
own lives and the public.
4. Following Procedure: The respondents argue that they were following
standard police procedures, including taking the accused to the crime
scene for investigation.
5. Public and Government Support: Many public figures and officials
supported the police action, seeing it as swift justice in response to a
horrific crime.
6. No Intent to Kill: No plan to kill the accused; the shooting was a
necessary response to the threat posed by the accused during the escape
attempt.
Issues:
For the respondents (the police officers and the state government), these
issues center around proving that the encounter was a lawful, necessary
act of self-defence, conducted within the framework of legal and
procedural guidelines. Concerns to address were about due process,
accountability, human rights, and the potential misuse of power to justify
their actions and defend against accusations of extrajudicial killings.
Contentions:
1. Use of force was lawful and necessary to protect themselves or others
from harm.
2. Proper procedures and protocols were followed during the encounter.
3. Actions did not violate any rights.
4. Action with good faith to protect one self.
Legal frameworks that are currently present in India:
Although, there is no provision in the Indian law that directly
authorizes the encounters of criminals, however, there are certain
enabling provisions which may be interpreted differently to vest police
officers with certain powers to deal with criminals.
 In almost all cases where an encounter has taken place, it is done
for self-defence of the police officer.
 Under Section-96 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), every human being
has the right to private defence which is a natural and an inherent
right.
 Similarly, Section-100 of IPC, exception 3 of Section 300 of IPC,
Section-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), etc. lay down
similar provisions with regard to investigations in extra-judicial
killings and cases of culpable homicide.
Related sections and Articles:
Section 46 of CRPC:
 When a person is about to be arrested, if they are not in a position
to resist, the police may use necessary force to apprehend them.
 The police are permitted to use force to effect the arrest only if the
person resists or tires to escape.
Section 96 of IPC:
 Section 96 of the IPC related to the “Right to Private Defence,”
which allows individuals to use force to protect themselves or their
property from imminent harm or danger.
 Police acted within the bounds of the self-defence or the defence of
others.
Section 4 of AFSPA:
 Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special power) Act provides certain
powers and immunities to the armed forces operating in areas
designates as “Disturbed” under the act.
Article 14 and 21:
 We can argue the actions were necessary to protect life and public
safety.
 We can claim that their actions were fair and non-discriminatory
ensuring equal treatment under the law.
 We can say the police followed proper guidelines and police manual
as they were aware of the legal facts and consequences if they did
anything unlawful.
Case laws:
1. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan, SC (2005)
2. T.K. Gajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, SC (2013)
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1996), SC, (in this case court
held that police did not violate legal norms or human rights
principles)
Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Prohibition could be used to seek judicial review for
respondent.
Prayer:
1. Request the court to dismiss any allegations of wrongdoing.
2. We request the court the to affirm that the respondent’s actions during the encounter was
lawful, justified, and conducted in self-defence.
3. We request any other relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest
of justice.

Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction:

I am the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, State of Anarka.

You might also like