4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

TC- 401

4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS PUNJAB UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE LUDHIANA

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973.

IN THE MATTER OF

RAHUL & ORS.………………………………………………………...……..……APPELLANT

VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB……………………………….…………………………….…RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 0|P A GE

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………….........................................................01-02

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………….03

LIST OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………...............................................04-05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….….….……….06

SUMMARY OF FACTS………….…………………………….............................................07-08

ISSUES RAISED………………….…………………………………………………………......9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS….…………………………………………………….…….......10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………….................11-24

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?....................................11-12

a. THE TRIAL ADHERED TO DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW…………………………….12
b. PROSECUTION IS LEGITIMATE AND NO SUBSTANTIAL AND GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS
BEEN DONE……………………………………………………………………11

c. THE SESSIONS COURT HAS DILIGENTLY GATHERED EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS NO

JUSTIFICATION FOR REVIEWING IT IN BROADER INTEREST OF

JUSTICE………………………………………………………………………..12

II. WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ALL THE THREE ACCUSED ARE
APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE
OFFENCES?.......................................................................................................12-20
a. ACCUSED 1 AND 3 ARE RIGHTFULLY PROSECUTED AND SENTENCED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC………………………………………………………..13-15

b. UNPRECEDENTED BRUTALITY: THE RAREST OF RARE CLASSIFICATION…….15-16

c. ACCUSED 1 AND 3 ARE GUILTY AND CORRECTLY SENTENCED UNDER THE
OFFENCE OF SECTION 326A OF

IPC…………………………………………………………………………16-17

d. ACCUSED 1 AND 3 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 34 OF IPC……………….....17-

18
e. THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY AND RIGHTFULLY SENTENCED UNDER SECTION 66E OF
IT ACT……………………………………………………………………...18-19

f. TRIAL IS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE………………………......19-20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

III. DOES THE LAW ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF PRIVACY THROUGH THE
INSTALLATION OF A HIDDEN CAMERA AND THE SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF
INTIMATE FOOTAGE?.......................................................................................20-23
a. THAT THE ACCUSED INTENTIONALLY CAPTURED AND PUBLISHED VIDEO......21-22
b. THAT THE ACCUSED PUBLISHED THE IMAGE OF A PRIVATE AREA OF THE
PERSON..22

c. THAT THE ACCUSED VIOLATED THE VICTIM’S RIGHTS…………………...…22-23

PRAYER……………………………………...……………………………….………….……24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

P&H Punjab and Haryana High court
F.I.R. First Information Report
Dr. Doctor
IT Information Technology
I.P.C. Indian Penal Code
C.R.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
RI Rigorous Imprisonment
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Case
SCR Supreme Court Reports
Pp Plural Pages
Ors. Others
v. Versus
⁋ Paragraph
CRILJ Criminal Law Journal
AIR All India Reporter
Edn. Edition
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
W.B. West Bengal
A.P. Andra Pradesh

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES:
S. NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION
1 Union of India v. W.N. Chadha AIR 1993 SC 1082
2 State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522
3 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patram Dass Raja AIR 1982 P&H 1
Ram Beri
4 Machhi Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 957
5 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
6 Om Prakash v. The State AIR 1956 CRILJ 358
7 C.K Jaffer Sharief v. State AIR 2013 SC 48
8 Rambilas Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1989 SC 1593
9 Jumman Khan v State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 345
10 Bappa Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2011) 12 SCC 554
11 State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75
12 Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
13 Sonu v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del 1955.
14 Udaipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 54
15 Kaushal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 CRILJ 2268
16 Hanumat v. State of M.P. (1953) SCR 1091
17 Abbas Ali v State of Rajasthan AIR 2007 SC 1239
18 Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898
19 Mohindar Singh vs The State AIR 1960 P&H 135
20 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union Of India AIR 2018 SC 1841
21 State of M.P v. Ram Prasad AIR 1968 SC 881
22 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1803
23 Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43
24 Shankar Kishanrao Khade v State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546
25 Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2015) 1 SCC 192
26 Sanjiv Kumar v State of HP AIR 1999 SC 782
27 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 654

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

28 R. Rajagopal v State of T.N. AIR 1995 SC 264

29 State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722
30 State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
31 State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram AIR 2004 SC 3432
32 State of U.P v. G.K Gosh AIR 1984 SC 1453
33 State of U.P v. Sukhbasi AIR 1985 SC 1224
34 Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh v. State AIR 1970 BOM 438

STATUES:
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

BOOKS REFRRED:
1. Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
2. KD. Gaur The Indian Penal Code.
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code
4. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, Criminal Procedure

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter under Section 374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 374(2):-
Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years [has been passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

SUMMARY OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Establishment of an amicable relationship between Kavita’s and Rahul’s families, transitioning

into a romantic involvement causing strain in Rahul and Reena’s marriage. Reena’s clandestine
installation of surveillance equipment, facilitated by Yash, escalates tensions, prompting Kavita
to pursue legal recourse. Rahul’s sudden disappearance precipitates a series of tragic events
culminating in a fatal altercation and the brutal sexual assault and murder of Kavita,
orchestrated by Rahul, Reena, and Yash. Legal proceedings result in the conviction of all three
accused.

THE INCIDENT

On receiving text from Rahul, Kavita met with him at S.K. Hotel. During their conversation,
Kavita revealed her pregnancy, which led to a heated argument. Rahul, wanting to end their
friendship, threatened and intoxicated her which made her unconscious and then left her alone
in hotel. Later, a partially decomposed body was found in hotel bathroom, and it was revealed
that Kavita had been raped and murdered. Rahul, Reena and Yash were charged and ultimately
convicted based on the evidence presented.

THE INVESTIGATION

On 30th December 2022 Kavita lodged an FIR against Reena for uploading a fake video on the
internet. The police officer filed the FIR against Rahul, Reena, and Yash based on the
information provided by Kavita. All the three accused have a common reason to commit this
crime because Rahul want to protect his marriage. Reena wants to defame Kavita because of
the affair she had with Rahul. Yash wants Kavita to go away from their lives because the
problems she has caused in his parent’s marriage and by also filling an FIR against his mother
Reena.

POSTMORTEM REPORT

On 25th January 2023 Dr. Rohit Arya submitted a postmortem report on January 25, 2023,
revealing gruesome details of the deceased's injuries, indicating rape and murder. The report
highlighted the removal of eyes, pulling of the tongue, dislocation of hands and arms, acid
poured into the mouth leading to the death of the unborn child, swelling and tearing of Labia
Majora and Minora, anal tear, neck bruises, and thigh bruises.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

The Sessions Court, after due appreciation of evidence, convicted all three accused based on
the charges framed. Rahul was awarded death penalty under Section 302 IPC, life
imprisonment under Section 326 A with a fine, and one year under Section 66E of the IT Act,
2000. Reena received three years' imprisonment under Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000. Yash
was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment under Section
326 A with a fine, and three years under Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

ISSUES RAISED

-I-

WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

-II-

WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ALL THE THREE ACCUSED ARE APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT
OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE OFFENCES?

-III-

HOW DOES THE LAW ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF PRIVACY THROUGH THE INSTALLATION OF
A HIDDEN CAMERA AND THE SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF INTIMATE FOOTAGE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9|Page

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court, to urged that the present appeal be dismissed,
as the judgment rendered by the Session Court has adjudged all three defendants culpable.
There exists no residual evidence necessitating re-examination or reconsideration. The Trial
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the dictates of law, wherein a lawful
prosecution ensued, culminating in the imposition of suitable penalties commensurate with the
transgressions perpetrated.

II. WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ALL THE THREE ACCUSED ARE
APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE OFFENCES?

It is humbly contended that the Hon’ble Sessions Court correctly held the Appellants, Yash and
Rahul as guilty of murder of Kavita under Section 302, Section 326A read with Section 34 of
IPC and Reena under Section 66E of The IT Act 2000 and the imposed on all the three accused
are appropriate in light of their involvement in the offences. Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) deals with the offense of murder and prescribes the punishment for it; whereas,
Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of causing grievous hurt
by use of acid. When read with Section 34 of the IPC, it involves the concept of joint liability.
Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the violation of privacy. It
specifically addresses the offense of capturing, publishing, or transmitting the image of a
private area of any person without their consent, and with the intent to violate their privacy.

III. HOW DOES THE LAW ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF PRIVACY THROUGH THE
INSTALLATION OF A HIDDEN CAMERA AND THE SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF
INTIMATE FOOTAGE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Rahul, Yash, and Reena
have been booked under Section 66E of The IT Act, 2000. The act performed by them satisfies
all the prerequisites of Section 66E of The IT Act, 2000: [a] Intentionally or knowingly captures
the person [b] Publishes or transmits the image of a private area of that person [c] Captures the
person without his/her consent. Further, the installation of a hidden camera in Kavita's room
by Yash, without her knowledge and consent is itself enough to prove that they constituted a
clear invasion of her privacy. Due to this negligent act of one person, the other person suffers.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that appeal should not be held
maintainable on the following grounds: [1.1] the trial adhered to due procedure of law, [1.2]
prosecution is legitimate and no substantial and grave injustice has been done [1.3] the sessions
court has diligently gathered evidence, and there is no justification for reviewing it in broader
interest of justice. The respondent therefore humbly contends that the appeal is not
maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court.

[1.1] The Trial Adhered to Due Procedure of Law

The courts which try a case are competent enough with the presumption that the trial has been
conducted fairly. It is stated in Section 28(2)1 a Sessions Judge or Additional Session Judge
may pass any sentence authorized by law, but any sentence of death passed by any Judge shall
be subject to confirmation by the High Court, here the death sentence to Rahul has been
confirmed by the high court2 under section 368 of CRPC. Therefore, it does not violate
procedure of law.

[1.2] Prosecution Is Legitimate and No Substantial and Grave Injustice Has Been
Done

In the case of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, Court stated that the inherent power of the Court
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution3. It is most humbly submitted that the
prosecution against the appellant is completely legitimate as all the ingredients of the offences
charged are constituted as is further contended in (issue 2). When ispo facto it is explicit that a
prima facie case is formed and the allegations do form sufficient grounds for issue of process
then there stands no legal ground to hold such prosecution as “illegitimate”.

The appellate Court is entitled with the power to intervene where the principles of natural
justice are violated. But natural justice “is not an unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a
judicial cure-all” and the “courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural law as a mere

1
Section 28(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973.
2
Statement of facts, ¶ 19.
3
State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

artefact4”. In present case no injustice had happened to the accused as they were tried lawfully,
considering all evidences available. Also, there was no question of any grave irregularity in the
procedure or violation of any mandatory provision of law which led to miscarriage of justice.

[1.3] THE SESSIONS COURT HAS DILIGENTLY GATHERED EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR REVIEWING IT IN BROADER INTEREST OF JUSTICE

In 2013, an amendment to the law permitted the death as a punishment in cases where the rape
leads to the death of the victim or left the victim in a persistent vegetative state, as well as for
repeat offenders. The procedure of the trial of the death penalty was followed by the procedure
provided in the Criminal Procedure code 1973, where it is mentioned, When the Court of
Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and
the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.5

The sessions court has considered all circumstantial evidence which led to the death of victim.
Sentence imposed on the accused are according to their commission of offences stated under
several sections of IPC and IT Act, in which the right to privacy and right to life of deceased
are violated by accused. Also, sentence of death has been confirmed by High Court with due
procedure.

II. WHETHER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ALL THE THREE ACCUSED

ARE APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE
OFFENCES?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that Rahul and Yash were rightly convicted by
Trial Court on following grounds; [2.1] Accused 1 and 3 are rightfully prosecuted and
sentenced under section 302 of IPC, [2.2] Unprecedented brutality: the rarest of rare
classification, [2.3] Accused 1 and 3 are guilty and correctly sentenced under the offence of
section 326A of IPC, [2.4] accused 1 and 3 are guilty under section 34 of IPC, [2.5] The accused
are guilty and rightfully sentenced under section 66E of IT Act and [2.6] Trial is based on
circumstantial evidence.

During the Trial proceedings the respondent had proved the chain of circumstances that
incriminate the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. No substantial evidence was led by the
appellant to indicate his innocence, which further credited the case to prosecution.

4
Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, AIR 1993 SC 1082.
5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) s. 366(1)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

[2.1] Accused 1 and 3 Are Rightfully Prosecuted & Sentenced Under Section 302 Of IPC

It is submitted that the sentences imposed on Rahul and Yash are justified considering their
culpability in the offenses under Section 302 of IPC by establishing that the essential
ingredients of Section 3006, ‘which deals with the offense of murder’ have been satisfied by
the accused Rahul and Yash.

This section prescribes either punishment for life imprisonment or death penalty and the
accused are punished as per this section; Rahul, with death penalty and Yash with life
imprisonment. The history of discord between the appellants and the deceased dates back to
December 2022.

2.1.1. The Appellant Had Motive & Intention to Cause Death

Where it is proved that the accused administered poison, the accused must be presumed to have
knowledge that his act was likely to cause death7 The current case strongly indicates a
deliberate intent to cause Kavita's demise, evident in the level of cruelty exhibited and the
detailed description of the body's condition in the postmortem report by Dr. Rohit Arya (PW3)8.
Previous conflicts between the accused Rahul, Yash, and the deceased and threats of dire
consequences by them, underscore their hostile intentions and animosity.

Here, the accused also have a strong motive to commit murder, as they sought to terminate her
and dissolve their relationship, necessitating a resolution to the matter. Also, administering of
acid into the mouth of deceased is sufficient to prove their intention.

[Link] Mens Rea

The Supreme Court has held that Mens Rea is also an essential ingredient of a criminal
offence.9 In a criminal court one often wants to test the alleged guilty mind by seeing what was
the motive of the alleged criminal in doing the particular act. Mens rea is considered a guilty
intention10, which is proved or incurred from the acts of the accused11.

In present case, the intention to kill had been established in light of clear-cut motive of the
accused. The intention to kill can be influenced from murder and nature of the injuries cause

6
Section 300 of IPC, 1860.
7
Sanjiv Kumar v. State of HP, AIR 1999 SC 782.
8
Statement of facts, ¶ 16.
9
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43.
10
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 P&H 1.
11
State of Maharashtra v. Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

to the victim12. The fact that there were 8 deadly injuries on the deceased’s body establishes
guilty mind and the fact that it was ‘done to death’. The circumstantial evidence drown out,
clearly establishes the intention, the accused had, to commit the offence.

[Link] Actus Reus

Actus Reus is any wrongful act.13 Thus, in a case of murder, Actus Reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim and both ‘mens rea’ as well as ‘actus rea’
must concur to produce result contemplated by law.14 In the instant case, it is contended that
the deceased was brutally raped and murdered constituting a wrongful act.

Thus, in present case mens rea is established by their way of crime and past threats, and actus
rea is established by injuries and rape committed on deaceased, all the brutal injuries
collectively would surely amount to death. Therefore, both mens rea and actus rea are present
in instant case.

2.1.2 Accused were known to the fact that their act in all probability would cause death.

If from the intentional act committed, the probability of death resulting is high, the findings
will be that the accused intended to cause death, or injury sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death; if there was probability in a less degree of death ensuing from the act
committed, the findings will be that the accused intended to cause injury likely to cause death.15

Accused possessed full knowledge of victim’s pregnancy16 and, with such awareness,
proceeded to perpetrate heinous offenses of rape and murder, therefore, it is reasonable to
presume that they were aware of their actions were likely to result in death of Kavita and
statement of PW1, partially decomposed dead body found immersed in hydrofluoric acid
supports the argument.

2.1.3 Injury Caused Was Sufficient to Cause Death

The supreme court has held that although this clause is usually invoked in those cases where
there is no intention to cause the death of any person, the clause may on its terms be used in
those cases where there is such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it
may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury

12
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1803.
13
Aiyar, P Ramanathan, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006).
14
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299
15
Abbas Ali v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 1239.
16
Statement of Facts, ¶ 13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

as is likely to cause death.17 The intention to kill is not required in every case, mere knowledge
that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice for a conviction
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.18

Acts of the accused mentioned in the postmortem report, were sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. These acts in any conditions would result to death of the person on
whom these acts were performed. Considering the gravity of inflicted injury, the likelihood of
survival is deemed nonexistence.

[2.2] Unprecedented Brutality: The Rarest of the Rare Classification

The test that court had to apply, while awarding death sentence are crime test, criminal test,
and rarest of rare test. In both cases of Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh 19, the validity of
death sentence in certain cases was held correct and guidelines have been indicated by the
supreme court as to when this extreme sentence should be awarded and when not. Courts are
required to draw up a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and thereafter
consider the matter whether the facts of the particular case warrants imposition of death
sentence which can be imposed only if case falls under the category of rarest of rare case.20

Aggravating circumstances in the present case are:

i. The victim has moderate intellectual disability

ii. She has been brutally raped and killed
iii. The victim did not provoke or invite the incident
iv. The rape and murder were barbaric and gruesome

But no mitigating circumstances are found. The principal reasons for confirming the death
penalty in case of rape and murder include the cruel, diabolic, brutal, depraved and gruesome
nature of the crime.21 The manner of commission of crime was ruthless and barbaric. Ruthless
crime of way of murder and rape of a woman who was having moderate intellectual disability,

17
State of M.P v. Ram Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 881.
18
Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 654.
19
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 See Also, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC
957.
20
State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram AIR 2004 SC 3432.
21
Jumman Khan v State of U.P AIR 1991 SC 345.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 15 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

shocks not only the judicial conscience but also the conscience of society.22 By not imposing
death sentence in such cases courts may do injustice to society at large.23

The act performed by Rahul and Yash, falls in rarest of rare case as the acts of removing eye
balls in live conditions, pulling of tongue from mouth, dislocating of arms, pouring acid into
the mouth and on the body, bruises and anal tear24 amounts to brutality cruelty and gruesome
nature of the crime. Here, the alternative option of lesser sentence is unquestionably foreclosed
due to the way of murdering. Therefore, considering above arguments sentence of death penalty
is appropriate.

2.2.1 Sentence imposed on Yash is correct

He has committed a heinous crime within his own capability. Although he is of 17, but his way
of commission of offence clearly suggested that he understood the nature and consequences of
his actions and therefore had a mature understanding of his acts. Leniency to those who
understand the nature and consequences of their acts is indefensible.25 Yash’s intent to cause
death was evident from his actions, justifying the conviction under section 302 IPC. Therefore,
he is rightfully convicted of life imprisonment. The Court has to balance the gravity of the
crime with appropriate punishment.

[2.3] The Accused 1 And 3 Are Guilty and Correctly Sentenced Under the Offence of
Section 326A Of IPC.

The time when the appellant departed from the deceased’s company is solely in the knowledge
of the appellant, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation forms an additional link in the
chain of events towards the establishment of his guilt.26 Here, accused failed to provide a
reasonable explanation for the same. Both accused individuals voluntarily inflicted severe harm
to the deceased by using acid, causing irreversible damage not only to the victim but also to
her unborn child, potentially resulting in their deaths.

Thus, the strained relationship between the parties and their acts, established motive on the part
of the appellant and provides an additional link in the incriminating chain of evidence that
establishes the guilt of the appellant. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant

22
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546.
23
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898.
24
Statement of facts, ¶ 16.
25
Om Prakash v. The State, AIR 1956 CRILJ 358
26
Bappa Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2011) 12 SCC 554; See also, State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
12 SCC. 254; See also, Evidence Act, § 106.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 16 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the sentence.27

The sessions court, recognizing the gravity of their actions, has appropriately sentenced Rahul
and Yash as per their commission of act for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid
with his full understanding of nature of crime, reflecting the court's acknowledgment of the
intentional and heinous nature of their deeds.

Therefore, the imposed penalties align with the severity of the offense, considering the
permanent harm inflicted upon the victim and her unborn child.

[2.4] Accused 1 And 3 Are Guilty Under Section 34 Of IPC

The leading feature of § 34 is the element of participation in action. Criminal sharing, overt or
covert, by active presence or by distant direction, making out a certain measure of jointness in
commission of the act, is the essence of this section. The accused are constructive liability
under this section as following conditions are fulfilled:

2.4.1 Common Intention Was Present

The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to
victim.28 It is further pertinent to note that if there is motive in doing an act, then the adequacy
of that motive is not in all cases necessary. Heinous offences have been committed for very
slight motive.29

Here, every injury caused by the accused on deceased are in nature of specifying clearly that
all would have been inflicted with the intention of causing death. The accused individuals
operated with a common intention to cause death. The presence of prior threats30 and enmity
strengthens the case for common intention, as it suggests a shared resolve to carry out the
criminal act with a predetermined objective. The circumstances strongly indicate a meticulous
and premeditated plan on the part of Rahul and Yash in carrying out the murder. Therefore, the
common intention of the accused of murdering the deceased had been established by
establishing a chain of circumstantial evidence and way of commission of crime.

2.4.2 Act was done by two persons

27
State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75.
28
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803.
29
Dinkar Bandhu Deshmukh and Anr. v. State AIR 1970 BOM 438.
30
Statement of facts, ¶ 9,13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 17 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

An act has to done by more than 1 person to constitute an offence under this section. Here, the
act of causing death and grievous hurt involves the participation of two individuals; Yash whose
presence has been witnessed by PW231 and Rahul who met and intoxicated her on the day.

2.4.3 Participation by all

In order to convict persons vicariously under Sec 34 it is not necessary to prove that each and
every one of the accused had indulged in overt acts even so, there must be material to show
that the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the
common intention of the accused.32 Both accused were present in hotel on the day of incident
therefore, from circumstantial evidence it can be clearly said that there was participation on
part of both the accused in furtherance of common intention as both wanted to cause grievous
hurt to her. The circumstances established lead to only one conclusion that both committed the
crime with common intention.

Therefore, from above arguments it is contended that accused are liable under this section.

[2.5] The Accused Are Guilty Under § 66 (e) of IT Act, 2000.

For attracting the offence under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act 2000, the case
should consist of the accused, intentionally or knowingly captured, published or transmitted
the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent under the circumstances
violating the privacy of that person etc.

2.5.1 The crime committed was intentionally and knowingly

Yash, with Reena’s assistance, deliberately installed a hidden camera in Kavita's room,
capturing private and intimate moments without her consent,33 thus infringing upon Kavita's
privacy rights. Subsequently, Rahul took a step further by uploading the recorded video on
social networking sites34, resulting in the humiliation of Kavita and her family. It is crucial to
note that all the accused were fully aware of the potential consequences of their actions, and
their deeds were executed intentionally with careful pre-planning, rather than being impulsive
or spontaneous.

2.5.2 Violation of Privacy

31
Statement of facts, ¶ 14
32
Rambilas Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1593
33
Statement of facts, ¶ 7,8
34
Statement of facts, ¶ 8

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 18 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

The actions of the accused in this case amount to a violation of the fundamental right to privacy,
as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, stated in K.S Puttaswamy
judgement35. The video captured without the victim's consent directly infringes upon the
reasonable expectation of privacy, especially concerning a woman, and contravenes the
constitutional guarantee of individual autonomy and personal space.

2.5.3 Punishment imposed by Sessions Court is appropriate for all the accused

The Session Court's sentencing is in accordance with the specific roles played by each accused
in the crime. Reena and Yash, engaged in both capturing and uploading Kavita's private video,
received a 3-year imprisonment, aligning with the provisions of Section 66E of the IT Act,
2000. Rahul, involved solely in uploading the video, received a 1-year sentence, reflecting the
distinction in their respective levels of involvement in the crime36.

Acts of accused fulfil all the ingredients of above section, hence liable for punishment.

[2.6] Trial is Based on the Circumstantial Evidence

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence, the
court must satisfy itself that various circumstance 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.37

Relying on the judgement of the apex court in Udaipal Singh38 where it was held that “In case
of circumstantial evidence, if it is shown that the accused having a strong motive had the
opportunity of committing the crime39 and the established circumstances on the record negating
the possibility of anyone else being the culprit, then the chain of evidence can be considered to
be so compete so as to show that within all possible human probability, the crime must have
been committed by the accused”, the accused must under these circumstances, safely be held
guilty.

35
Justice [Link] (Retd) v. Union Of India AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841.
36
Statement of facts, ¶¶ 7-8.
37
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144.
38
Udaipal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 54.
39
Kaushal Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 CRILJ 2268.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 19 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that circumstantial is consistent with the guilt of the accused and
innocent with his innocence, even then there should be no difficulty in upholding the
prosecution case.40

The 5 conditions laid down in Hanumat v. State of M.P41 are being fulfilled in a case based on
circumstantial evidence:

1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn is fully established;
2) The facts established is consistent with hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to
say, they are not explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3) The circumstances are of a conclusive nature and tendency:
4) They are excluding every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5) The chain of evidence is complete and not leaving any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and showing that in all human
probability the act is done by the accused.

We may also make a reference to a decision of the Apex Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of
A.P. 42 wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally inconsistent with his innocence.” Therefore, accused should be convicted on the
basis of circumstantial evidence as from the circumstances only their guilt is being established.

The fact that the accused were in the company of the victim in same room along with their past
conflicts brings home the guilt of the accused person and it was upon them to explain the cause
of injuries found on the person of the deceased. Failure to explain that why the deceased was
in an unconscious condition coupled with other circumstantial evidence is a grave
circumstance.

III. HOW DOES THE LAW ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF PRIVACY

THROUGH THE INSTALLATION OF A HIDDEN CAMERA AND THE
SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF INTIMATE FOOTAGE?

40
State of U.P v. G.K Gosh, AIR 1984 SC 1453. See Also, State of U.P v. Sukhbasi, AIR 1985 SC 1224.
41
Hanumat v. State of M.P (1953) SCR 1091.
42
C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193, (SCC pp. 206-07 ¶ 21).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 20 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that violation of the privacy
of an individual recorded through any means is defined under Section 66E of The Information
Technology Act, 2000. A malafide intention has to be proved in order to hold one guilty under
this section. The act performed by Reena, Rahul and Yash, meets all the requirements outlined
in the specified section.

The independent merit of each circumstance in the chain of evidence is analysed below:

3.1 That the Accused Intentionally Captured and Published Video

3.1.1 Intentions were transparent

The installation of a hidden camera in Kavita's room by Yash, without her knowledge and
consent43 constitutes a clear invasion of her privacy. Reena, with full knowledge of the recorded
intimate moments involving Rahul and Kavita at Kavita’s residence, intentionally threatened
Rahul to post the video on social networking sites44. Although, Rahul was threatened by Reena
to post the video, he was fully aware of the potential impact it could have on Kavita. Despite
this awareness, he chose to post the video in an attempt to safeguard his own family and make
amends for his previous actions. Evidently, the intentions of all individuals are transparent.

3.1.2 Presence of both Actus rea and Mens rea

‘Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ is a fundamental principle in criminal law. This
Latin phrase encapsulates the concept that both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a guilty mind
(mens rea) are essential elements for a criminal offense to occur. The offence is determined by
the existence of both mens rea and an actus reus. 45 To make a person criminally accountable,
it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law has been caused by his conduct.46 It
encompasses a broad range of actions. On the other hand, Mens rea pertains to the mental state
or intent of the perpetrator at the time of committing the actus reus.

Reena directed Yash to install a concealed camera in Kavita's room without her consent, leading
to mens rea. Yash, in turn, is accountable for actus reus, as he carried out the installation of the
camera, becoming the instigator of the cause of action. Rahul is equally liable for actus reus
since he disseminated the video on social networking sites.

43
Statement of facts, ¶ 7.
44
Statement of facts, ¶ 8
45
Mohindar Singh v. The State AIR 1960 P&H 135.
46
C.K Jaffer Sharief v. State, AIR 2013 SC 48

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 21 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

3.2 That the Accused Published the Image of a Private Area of The Person

Section 66E specifically addresses the unauthorized capturing of the image of private areas.
Privacy protection is an important aspect of morality and law. It is the right of every individual
to expect privacy and feel safe.47 This section underscores the importance of respecting
individuals' privacy rights and serves as a deterrent against the malicious use of technology to
invade personal spaces.

In the present case, the footage captured intimate moments48, revealing Kavita in a state that
could potentially involve complete nudity. In view of these circumstances, it is evident that the
recording should be regarded as a violation of applicable provisions.

3.3 The Accused Violated the Victim’s Rights

The video underscores a blatant violation of her privacy rights, constituting an offence under
Section 66E. Kavita was neither aware nor was her consult taken before recording the video.
The recorded footage, capturing intimate moments, is now exposed to the public without her
authorization. This unauthorized dissemination not only exacerbates the breach of Kavita's
personal space but also compounds the infringement on her right to control the dissemination
of her very own private affairs. Such actions stand in direct contravention to principles of
consent, respect, and privacy. It not only violates legal provisions but also raises ethical and
moral concerns regarding the respectful treatment of individuals' private lives.

3.3.1 The act promoted voyeurism

Section 66E therefore, prohibits electronic voyeurism and penalises the capturing, publishing
and transmission of images of the “private area” of any person without their consent, “under
circumstances violating the privacy” of that person. Voyeurism is the sexual interest in
or practice of watching other people engaged in intimate behaviours, such as
undressing, sexual activity, or other actions of a private nature where in regular circumstances
he or she does not expect to be observed.49 The sexual integrity of every person has to be
respected and any violation of the same should be dealt with a stern hand50. Reena and Yash
have actively facilitated the criminal act of voyeurism by installing a hidden camera in Kavita’s
room, capturing their intimate moments where she has expectation of her privacy.

47
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
48
Statement of facts, ¶ 8
49
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) s. 354C
50
Sonu v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del 1955.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 22 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

3.3.2 Right to privacy has been violated

The right to privacy, as a fundamental right, is crucial for safeguarding individual autonomy,
dignity, and personal freedom. The right to privacy is considered a fundamental and intrinsic
part of an individual's autonomy and dignity.51 Capturing Kavita, while she was intimate with
Rahul without her consent or knowledge constitutes a clear violation of her fundamental right
to privacy and also, violates the sanctity of personal space, an area where Kavita expects to
have complete control over who has access to her body and personal moments.

Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy within their homes and other private
spaces. Capturing Kavita naked within the confines of her own space, where she has a
heightened expectation of privacy, intensifies the violation. The unauthorized recording
breaches this legitimate expectation.

3.3.3 Dignity and Autonomy

Dignity is the quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly cherished value.52 Privacy
is closely tied to an individual's dignity and autonomy. Every individual has the right to live
with dignity.53 Being captured in a state of engaged with someone without consent robs Kavita
of her ability to control her personal image, infringing on her autonomy and diminishing her
dignity.

3.3.4 Consent

None can publish anything concerning privacy without consent whether truthful or otherwise
and whether laudatory or critical.54 Privacy rights often hinge on the concept of informed
consent. If Kavita is unaware of being recorded while naked and has not given explicit consent
for such recording, her privacy rights are unequivocally breached. The absence of consent
removes the individual's ability to control the use and dissemination of their private moments.

Therefore, all the ingredients required to constitute an offence of violation of privacy under
section 66 E of IT Act are fulfilled by the accused.

PRAYER

51
Justice [Link] (Retd) v. Union Of India AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841
52
Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2015) 1 SCC 192
53
Article 21 of Indian Constitution
54
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N, AIR 1995 SC 264.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 23 | P a g e

 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, LUDHIANA

Wherefore in light of facts stated, issue raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble High Court of Punjab may be pleased to:

A. TO NOT MAINTAIN the present appeal.

B. TO KEEP the order of conviction and sentence imposed by Hon’ble Session Court.

C. TO DECLARE, that there was direct nexus between the casual action of the accused
and the privacy of the deceased.
AND/OR

Pass any order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 24 | P a g e