TEAM CODE:

SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHERALA

(Under Section 374(2) of CrPC,1973)

IN THE MATTER OF

Ms. Nisha, Mr. Varun, and Mr. Madhavan

(Appellants)

v.

State of Cherela

(Respondents)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 1
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................8

ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................12

I- THAT THE CHARGE SHEET, POLICE REPORT, AND EVIDENCE ALL WERE
MANIPULATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS FOR IMPOSING SERIOUS CRIMINAL
CHARGES ON DEVI’S FAMILY......................................................................................12

1.1 The police have not collected any strong evidence that would prove the
involvement of the family in the crime.............................................................................12

1.2 The investigation of the police is biased and, therefore the charge sheet should be
quashed.............................................................................................................................14

1.3 The police have unjustly tortured and mentally harassed Devi’s family to accept
the vague allegations.........................................................................................................16

II- THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN NOT BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS MADE

BY DEVI’S FAMILY..........................................................................................................19

2.1 The confession made by Devi’s family was forced....................................................19

2.2 The confession made by Devi’s family could not be admissible in a court of law....20

III- THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THE PRESENT CASE................................................24

3.1 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela is empowered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
allow for reinvestigation...................................................................................................24

3.2 The Court cannot convict the accused without proper investigation.....................26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 2
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

IV- THAT THERE EXIST SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR QUASHING THE TRIAL.
28

4.1 The trial court has not followed the procedure established by law.......................28

4.2 The High Court with its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should
quash the decision of the trial court..................................................................................29

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................31

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 3
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr. P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Art. Article
Sec. Section

Mad. Madras High Court

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

Raj Rajasthan High Court

Ori Orissa High Court

Guj Gujarat High Court

IPC Indian Penal Code

IC Indian Cases

v. Versus

CONST Constitution

BomCR Bombay Cases Reporter

MANU Manupatra

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 4
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aghnoo Nagesia v. the State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119.......................................................20

Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar, AIR (2014) SC 2756......................................................12
Babu Bhai v. the State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254...........................................................23
Balak Ram v. State of UP., AIR 1974 SC 2165.......................................................................16
Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CriLJ 3044..............................................................15
Bharpur Singh vs Parshotam Dass, RSA No. 2778 of 2015....................................................12
Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/ MH/ 2420 /2018...........................26
CBI Vs. Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253............................................................................23
Champa Rani Mondel v. the State of West Bengal, (2001) 10 SCC 608................................26
Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/HP/0845/2018................................15
Chandran v. State, AIR 1978 SC 1574....................................................................................19
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, AIR 2018 SC 980.......................................14
Dhananjay Reddy v. the State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9.................................................19
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416.............................................................11
Dr. Rini Johar v. State of MP (2015), MANU/SCOR/37454/2015.........................................12
Eurasian Equipment Chemicals Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266...........13
Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 397..................................................22
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196................................14
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347........................................22
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347.....................................22
Joginder Kumar v. the State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349..........................................................17
Kali Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773...........................................16
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 760...............................24
'Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482...........................................................22
Kishore Chand v. the State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140...................................18
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.................................................................15
M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore, 1991 (3) ALT 542........................16
Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47................................................27
Mahabir v. the State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 2503..............................................................19

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 5
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Mahboob Sab v. Union of India, AIR 2011 Kar 8...................................................................16

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851.............................13
Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr, AIR 1978 SC 1025..............................................18
Narayan Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 737............................................19
Narinder Singh v State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466................................................................28
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466..............................................................27
Nilabati Behera v. the State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.....................................................17
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs State of Punjab & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 984........................................24
OM Prakash v. State of UP, AIR 1960 SC 409.......................................................................14
Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, (1939) 41 BOMLR 428.......................................20
Parbatbhai Ahir v. the State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 4843...................................................27
Parshadi v. the State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 211......................................................................18
Pradeep Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) MANU/DE/2639/2015..............................12
Prakash Chandra v. Managing director, ORTCO,  AIR 1980 Ori 122.....................................16
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293..................................................27
Prathap Reddy v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29833..........................................................12
Queen Empress v. Babu Lal, (1899) ILR 21 All 106...............................................................20
R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 207..................................................11
Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 346............................................................22
RP Kapoor v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 862..............................................................27
Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma Appeal (civil) 4882 of 2007...................................................16
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974......................................................................15
SK Yusuf v. the State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 2283....................................................24
State Bank of India v. Om Narayan Aggarwal, AIR 2011 All 169.........................................25
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808....................................................15
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.................................................................28
State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489...........................................................27
State of Maharashtra v. Damn, (2000) 6 SCC 269..................................................................18
State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyay, AIR 1960 SC 1125...........................................................21
Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3258
..............................................................................................................................................24
The State of Punjab v. CBI (2011) 9 SCC 182........................................................................22
The State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena, AIR 2021 SC 1610..........................................16
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (MANU/ SC/0530/2020)................................16

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 6
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171.........................................................................20

Statutes

Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec 164.............................................................................................................16

Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 161............................................................................................................20
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 173(8).......................................................................................................22
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 26..............................................................................................................19
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 482............................................................................................................22
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 53A...........................................................................................................13
Cr.P.C., 1971. Sec. 281............................................................................................................19
Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 157............................................................................................................15
Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 173............................................................................................................15
Cr.P.C.1970, Sec. 41................................................................................................................12
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 20(3)............................................................................................12
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 21................................................................................................12
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 22................................................................................................12
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sec. 102............................................................................16
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sec. 25..............................................................................13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 7
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section
374(2)1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1
374. Appeals from convictions.

(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  2 has been passed against him
or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 8
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

Nisha and Madhavan are married couples residing in Idukku village in the state of Cherela.
Madhavan is a poor farmer who depends on his daily wages for his livelihood. They
remained childless for the first five years of their marriage. When they approached a
gynecologist, they came to know that Nisha was infertile. They suggested she move forward
with Assisted Reproductive Technology such as IVF treatment. But the family was very poor,
as they had difficulty even earning their daily bread. While Nisha was in deep distress for
being childless, she met a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl, Prabha, who was willing to abort the
fetus but her health conditions were of such a nature that abortion might have endangered her
life. Nisha took Prabha to her mother’s village, where she took all the care that Prabha
needed. After a few months, Prabha delivered a healthy girl child who was named “Devi”. As
Prabha needed to focus on her career and studies, she handed over the unwanted child to
Nisha. Thus, Nisha became the de-facto guardian of Devi.

The daily routine of the family

Devi was in the ninth grade. She used to go to the Government School Idukku. Madhavan
and Nisha used to leave home by 8 am for their job and returned at 6 pm evening. Devi used
to return from school by 4 pm. After school hours, she used to attend tuition for Mathematics
in her neighboring house from 4 pm to 5 pm. The tuition was taken by her neighbor “Vivek
Sir” aged 26, a postgraduate in Mathematics. He was staying with his mother and brother
aged seventeen years. As the girl was bright in her studies, he came forward to take tuition at
a low fee.

Circumstances leading to the death

On 9th August 2021, while Nisha was busy in the kitchen early morning, Devi was ill and
reluctant to go to school. When Nisha touched Devi’s body, she found that Devi had a high
fever. Nisha decided not to go to her work. She advised Devi to rest properly and quickly
went to the kitchen to prepare a hot rice soup for the girl. When Nisha returned to the
bedroom with the soup, she found Devi unconscious and white foam was coming from her
mouth. There were jerking movements of arms and legs. Thinking these symptoms to be fits
or seizures, she was immediately taken to the hospital in case of a medical emergency. On

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 9
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

reaching the hospital, the doctors confirmed that Devi was having some serious issues to
worry and she was taken immediately to ICU for further medical investigation. It was found
that there was a deep wound on the back side of her head which was not noticed due to her
thick hair. This deep wound on her head has caused internal bleeding in her brain and the
wound is of such a nature that it can cause immediate death. Devi passed away after two days
of suffering. The post-mortem report of Devi revealed that the wound in her back head was
severe and was the sole reason for her death. At the same time, she was brutally raped by
more than one person and there was internal bleeding in her reproductive organs.

Police investigation

When the investigation commenced, the police authorities reached an inference that the girl
would not have been injured severely without the knowledge of her parents- Nisha and
Madhavan. Local inhabitants informed that Nisha’s sister’s son, Varun, used to financially
help Devi’s parents and these facts created suspicion in the family. The Police authorities
reached an inference that Varun had sexually abused the deceased minor girl with the
knowledge of her de facto guardians and she was forced into prostitution to meet the financial
needs of the poor family. Nisha, Madhavan, and Varun were arrested by the Police and the
charge sheet was submitted to a nearby magistrate imposing charges of murder, rape, and
forced prostitution on them. They confessed to the police regarding their connection to the
crime. However, the family has claimed that they were physically and mentally tortured by
the police authorities. At the same time, Devi’s family raises allegations against the previous
residents of their nearby house. A family with a mother aged fifty and two sons aged 26 and
17 were staying opposite Devi’s home on rent at the time of the commission of the offense.
Devi was going for Math tuition in their home. After six months after the date of occurrence
of this crime, they shifted to another house on rent almost 10 KM away from Devi’s home.
But the police authorities had not enquired about their involvement in the commission of the
offense.

The case before the High Court

The trial court convicted the accused- Nisha, Madhavan, and Varun on charges of rape, and
forced prostitution based on their confession to the police during the investigation. The
accused have filed an appeal before the high court against the decision of the lower court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 10
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ISSUES RAISED

-I-
Whether the charge sheet and police report were manipulated by police officers to imposing
serious criminal charges on Devi’s family?

-II-
Whether sole conviction can be based on confessions made by Devi’s family?

-III-
Whether re-investigation can order in the interest of justice by the Hon’ble High Court in this
case?

-IV-
Whether sufficient grounds exist for quashing the trial ??

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 11
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I- That the charge sheet, police reports, and evidence, all were manipulated by
Police Officers for imposing serious criminal charges on the accused family.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the charge sheet, police reports, and
evidence, all were manipulated by Police officers for imposing serious criminal charges
on the accused family. The police have not collected any evidence that could prove the
involvement of Devi’s family in the crime. The police have physically and mentally
tortured the family to spill a confession. Moreover, there are other suspects whose
involvement in the crime has not been investigated by the police.

II- That sole conviction can not be based on confessions made by Devi’s family.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that sole conviction of the family cannot
be made on the confession made by them to the police during the investigation. The
family was forced to make a confession. Moreover, the family made their confession in
police custody which cannot be admissible in court.

III- That re-investigation can be ordered in the interest of justice by the Hon’ble
High Court in this case.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that a re-investigation can be ordered by
the hon’ble court in the present case in the interest of justice. There are various aspects of
the case that needs to be revealed. The conviction of the accused cannot be done solely on
the basis of the present investigation. Therefore, the High Court, by the powers vested in
it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should order a reinvestigation by the CBI.

IV- That sufficient grounds exist for quashing the trial.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there exist sufficient grounds for
quashing the trial. The trial court has not followed the procedure established by law,
therefore, the High Court by its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should
quash the trial in the interest of justice.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 12
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2.1 THAT THE CHARGE SHEET, POLICE REPORT, AND EVIDENCE ALL
WERE MANIPULATED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS FOR IMPOSING
SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES ON DEVI’S FAMILY

1. It is humbly submitted that the police officers have not collected any strong evidence
about the involvement of Devi’s family in the rape and subsequent murder of Devi.
The charge sheet and the police report have been manipulated by the police officers for
imposing vague and serious charges on the family.

2. It is humbly submitted that the police have not enquired about the involvement of the
former neighbors in the commission of the offense, where Devi used to go every day
for her maths tuition. The police have denied their involvement in the crime and it is
supporting that family as they belong to an educated and upper-middle-class family
who maintains a good reputation in society. The investigation itself is biased.

3. It is humbly submitted that the police have unjustly tortured and mentally harassed
Devi’s family to accept the vague allegations. The right against self-incrimination of
the family enshrined under Article 20(3)2 of the Constitution of India has been
violated.

1.1 The police have not collected any strong evidence that would prove the involvement
of the family in the crime.

4. It is humbly submitted that Devi’s family was arrested 3 without any proper proof.
Their fundamental right to life and liberty, under Article 214 of the Indian Constitution,

2
INDIA CONST., 1950 Art. 20(3).
3
R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 207.
4
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 21.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 13
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

and their right against preventive detention under Article 22 5 of the Indian Constitution
were violated.6
5. Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure elaborates on the instances when a
person could be arrested by the police without a warrant, i.e., in case of a cognizable
offense as in the present case.8 As per Section 41(b) of CrPC,9 a police officer may
arrest any person against whom Reasonable complaints are made or credible
information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists.10 In the present case, the
police have merely drawn an inference that the girl would not have been injured
without the knowledge of the parents. However, the family’s daily schedule was tight.
Between 4 PM to 5 PM while the girl attended her math tuition in the neighborhood,
her parents were their work. Nisha and Madhavan used to return home by 6 PM.
Devi’s parents could never have known whatever used to happen at the maths tuition.
Moreover, teens hesitate to disclose any traumatic sexual intercourse with anyone.11

6. As per Section 53A12 of the CrPC, a proper examination of the person accused of rape
has to be conducted by a medical practitioner.13 However, in the present case, the girl
died without giving any dying declaration. No medical examination of the body of the
accused has been done that could strongly prove that Varun has raped Devi.

7. In Pratap Reddy v. State By the Inspector of Police,14 the Supreme Court held that the
charge sheet cannot be filed against the accused solely based on a confession that does
not lead to recovery. The confession cannot be the basis for conviction even if
accepting the confession as true as the confession is inadmissible in evidence under
Section 2515 of the Indian Evidence Act as the same was made to a police officer and
no recovery was made based on the confession. However, in the present case, the

5
INDIA CONST., 1950, Art. 22.
6
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416.
7
Cr.P.C.1970, Sec. 41.
8
Dr. Rini Johar v. State of MP (2015), MANU/SCOR/37454/2015.
9
Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar, AIR (2014) SC 2756.
10
Pradeep Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2022) MANU/DE/2639/2015.
11
The National Child Traumatic Stress Network,
https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/fact-sheet/why_dont_they_tell_teens_and_sexual_assault_dis
closure.pdf, (last visited, Dec. 3, 2022)
12
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 53A.
13
Bharpur Singh vs Parshotam Dass, RSA No. 2778 of 2015.
14
Prathap Reddy v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29833.
15
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sec. 25.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 14
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

charge sheet has been filed by the police solely based on a forced confession that does
not lead to anything.

8. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the police have
collected no strong evidence to impose such serious criminal charges on them. The
family has been arrested on vague grounds of mere inference. Hence, it is very clear
that the charge sheet and the police report have been manipulated by the police.

1.2 The investigation of the police is biased and, therefore the charge sheet should be
quashed.

9. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the investigation of the police was
biased. Devi’s family has raised allegations against the family of the maths tutor whom
Devi used to go to every day between 4 PM to 5 PM in the absence of her parents.
Nisha and Madhavan used to return home by 6 PM. They mentioned that after six
months after the date of occurrence of this crime, they shifted to another house on rent
almost ten kilometers away from Devi’s home. However, the police authorities ignored
all allegations and didn’t enquire about their involvement in the commission of this
offense. The Police are supporting that family as they belong to an educated and
upper-middle-class family who maintains a good reputation in society.

10. The police have a confirmation bias as to the involvement of the family in the crime
which is against the principles of natural justice. The court held in Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner,16 that the concept of fairness should be present in
all actions, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative or quasi-administrative in
nature. All of the executive engineers were blacklisted in the case of Eurasian
Equipment and Company Limited vs. the State of West Bengal.17 The Supreme Court
ruled that you cannot blacklist someone without a valid and reasonable reason and that
he should be given a fair chance to be heard. However, the police authorities in the
present case have turned a deaf ear to the allegations of the family and have accepted
their involvement in the crime.

16
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851.
17
Eurasian Equipment Chemicals Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 266.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 15
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

11. The police need to investigate the involvement of the family of the maths tutor also to
ascertain the actual culprit of Devi’s death. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The
State of Delhi,18 the Supreme Court laid down certain essential elements for the
process of investigation: the police require to go to the location of the crime, then it is
required to investigate and determine the facts, and circumstances of the case, steps
should be taken to apprehend the suspected offender, all the evidence against him/her
should be put together, then it is required to form an opinion to determine whether the
materials related to the case go against or in favor of the offender. 19 However, in the
present case, the police have merely inferred the involvement of the offenders, and not
even tried to assemble the evidence as there was no evidence.

12. In the present case, the police have limited their investigation to the preliminary stage.
As per the law, the police are required to prepare three reports based on the two stages
of an investigation. Section 15720 of the CrPC requires that a preliminary report is to be
submitted by the officer-in-charge of the police station to a magistrate. Section 173 21 of
CrPC requires the final report of the police officer as the investigation is completed to
be submitted to the magistrate. However, in the present case, only a preliminary
investigation has been conducted.

13. The police have imposed allegations of rape on Varun on the ground that he used to
financially help Devi’s family. However, the maths tutor “Vivek Sir” also charged a
low fee from Devi. If the inference taken by the police is taken into consideration, then
‘Vivek Sir’ is also a possible suspect. A thorough investigation is needed to be
conducted by the police as to the involvement of the maths tutor and his 17-year-old
brother in the connection to the crime.

14. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the current
investigation by the police is insufficient and flawed to a great extent. Justice in the
present case could only be administered after the proper investigation is carried out by
the police taking into consideration all the potential suspects involved in the case. The

18
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
19
OM Prakash v. State of UP, AIR 1960 SC 409.
20
Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 157.
21
Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 173.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 16
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Supreme Court stated in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,22 that a
person should be presumed and believed to be innocent until proven guilty.23 It shall be
unjust if Devi’s family is presumed to be guilty and the family of the Maths tutor is
presumed to be innocent merely because the latter belongs to an educated, upper-
middle-class family who maintains a good reputation in society.

1.3 The police have unjustly tortured and mentally harassed Devi’s family to accept the
vague allegations.

15. It is humbly submitted that the police have unjustly tortured and mentally harassed
Devi’s family to make the confession, which is a violation of their right against self-
incrimination enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It is based on the
maxim, ‘Nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum’, which means “No man is obliged
to be a witness against himself.

16. The Supreme court held in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad,24 that it must be
demonstrated that the person was coerced into making a statement that was likely to
incriminate him.25 In the present case, Devi’s family would never have given any
confession that would have endangered them unless they were tortured by the police. 26
They made it very clear by strongly opposing the allegations in the public.

17. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra,27 the court emphasized that the right under Article
20(3) of the constitution, embodies certain significant essentials. Firstly, it is a right
available to a person accused of an offense. Secondly, it is a protection against the
compulsion to be a witness. Thirdly, it is a protection against such compulsion
resulting in giving evidence against himself. The appellants were subjected to physical
torture to be a witness against themselves in the present case.

22
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, AIR 2018 SC 980.
23
Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/HP/0845/2018.
24
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.
25
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974.
26
Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CriLJ 3044.
27
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 17
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

18. The statement or confession given by Devi’s family is not absolute. It has to be
verified by the police. However, the police have taken no such step and are firm on
their hypothetical inference that Devi’s family caused the rape and death of Devi. It
was held in Balak Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,28 that witness evidence cannot
be thrown out simply because their statement was recorded under Section 164 29 of the
CrPC. Their evidence should be treated with caution.

19. The court has time and again emphasized that there should be a presumption of
innocence toward the accused.30 Section 10231 of the Indian Evidence Act explains that
"the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no
evidence at all were given on either side." The burden of proof is always on the party
who challenges the fact, not the party who denies the fact or evidence in the case. 32 In
Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma,33 there was a question of will execution and will
execution by coercion. The court ruled that each party must prove its allegations,
which means that the party alleging that the will was coerced must do so as well. 34 In
the present case, the burden of proof must be on the police authorities to substantiate
their allegations with strong evidence and not by inferential ideas.35

20. The family got Devi after lots of effort. Nisha stayed with Devi’s birth mother Prabha
and took all the care she needed to become Devi’s guardian. Nisha and Madhavan
went beyond their pocket to ensure that Devi gets the best out of her education. They
had even set up tuition classes for their daughter. As Devi seemed ill, Nisha
immediately took her to the hospital. The family did all they could for Devi. They
could never have sold their daughter for prostitution.

In The State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena,36 the apex Court ruled that the mere
fact of an acquittal is insufficient and depends on whether the acquittal was made
based on the total absence of evidence or the basis of the benefit of the doubt. The

28
Balak Ram v. State of UP., AIR 1974 SC 2165.
29
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec 164.
30
M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore, 1991 (3) ALT 542.
31
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Sec. 102.
32
Mahboob Sab v. Union of India, AIR 2011 Kar 8.
33
Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma Appeal (civil) 4882 of 2007.
34
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (MANU/ SC/0530/2020).
35
Prakash Chandra v. Managing director, ORTCO, AIR 1980 Ori 122.
36
The State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena, AIR 2021 SC 1610.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 18
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

court also ruled that in cases of heinous crimes, acquittal solely based on the benefit of
the doubt does not make the respondent eligible for appointment.37

The allegations put forth by the police have tarnished the reputation of Devi’s family
in society. There are no grounds or evidence by which the police claim their assertion.
The court should not take into consideration the inferences taken out by the police on
their preliminary investigation, as this may not ensure true justice.

21. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Devi’s family was
unjustly harassed by the police. Their confession was unjustly recorded and their
statement about the Math tuition and the Math teacher as a suspect was not even taken
into slight consideration. The charge sheet and the report filed by the police are flawed
and unjustly manipulated.

37
Kali Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 19
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

2.2 THAT SOLE CONVICTION CAN NOT BE BASED ON CONFESSIONS

MADE BY DEVI’S FAMILY.

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Devi’s family was subjected to
custodial violence by the police. The confession made by Devi’s family was forced as
they were physically and mentally tortured by the police.

2. It is humbly submitted that the confession made by Devi’s family in front of the
police and not in a court of law. The statement by Devi’s family could not be
admissible unless they confess in a court of law.

2.1 The confession made by Devi’s family was forced.

3. It is humbly submitted that Devi’s family was subjected to custodial violence. Their
fundamental right to protection with respect to conviction and detention, freedom to
life and personal liberty, and protection against arrest and detention guaranteed by the
Constitution in Articles 20,38 21,39 and 2240 respectively have been violated.

4. It has been stated by the court that no person shall be a witness against himself. 41
However, in the present case, the accused were forcefully made to confess the offense
by violence.42 They were made to illegitimately accept the charges against them.

5. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Devi’s family was
physically and mentally tortured to confess to a crime that they have not committed.
The statement made by them cannot be held admissible as they didn’t give any
information that would lead to the discovery of any fact.43

38
Joginder Kumar v. the State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349.
39
Nilabati Behera v. the State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.
40
Supra, 6.
41
Supra, 25.
42
Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) And Anr, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
43
Parshadi v. the State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 211.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 20
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

2.2 The confession made by Devi’s family could not be admissible in a court of law.

6. It is humbly submitted that the confession made by Devi’s family in front of the
police authorities is not admissible and would not hold any value in a court of law.
According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872; No confession made to a
police officer can be proved as against the accused”. 44 Section 25 prohibits the
admissibility of a confession made to a police officer and completely excludes it from
evidence against the accused in any circumstances. It makes no difference whether
such a person is in police custody or not, or whether the statement is made during the
investigation or not. According to Section 164 45 of the CrPc, a confession made to a
police officer is only admissible if made in front of the Magistrate. 46

7. According to Section 2647 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, "no confession made by
any person while in police custody shall be proved as against such person unless made
in the immediate presence of a Magistrate." Section 26 of the Indian Act applies when
a person in police custody converses with anyone other than the officer and confesses
his guilt. The underlying principle of this provision is the same: police can torture and
coerce a person into confessing involuntarily, and the resulting confession will be
tainted. Therefore, only a confession made in police custody but in the immediate
presence of the Magistrate will be considered admissible, as the Magistrate's presence
may rule out the possibility of police pressure or torture. According to Section 164 of
the CrPc, confessions must be recorded in front of the Magistrate in the manner
specified in Section 28148 of the CrPc and signed by the person. A memorandum must
also be prepared by the Magistrate.49 However, in the present case, Devi’s family
confessed to the crime in front of the police who tortured them. They never accepted
the crime in the presence of a magistrate.

44
State of Maharashtra v. Damn, (2000) 6 SCC 269.
45
Cr.P.C., 1971. Sec. 164.
46
Kishore Chand v. the State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 2140.
47
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 26.
48
Cr.P.C., 1971. Sec. 281.
49
Dhananjay Reddy v. the State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 21
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

8. In Narayana Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh,50 it was stated that a confession
given to a police officer would not be admissible even if the police officer is given the
title and power of a Magistrate. Before recording any such confession, a legal duty
has been cast upon the Magistrate to apprise the accused that he is not bound to
confess, and if he does it can be used as evidence against him. These provisions are
salutary and are not mere formalities therefore rich compliance must be ensured. The
Magistrate must also disclose his identity to the accused to assure him that he is free
from the influence of the police. If the magistrate fails to deliver a warning to the e
accused or to disclose his identity, it can vitiate the confession and render it
inadmissible.
In Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana,51 the court observed that where the Magistrate
fails to inform the accused that he was not bound to confess shall not be considered
evidence against the accused.
In Chandran v. State,52 it was held that under Section 164, it is the sine qua that the e
Magistrate must have reason to believe that the confession is voluntary. The
expression ‘has reason to believe imports a high degree of expectation which is free
from doubts. However, in the present case, no confession was asked to make in front
of the magistrate as per Section 164. The entire trial and conviction in the present case
were done based on the confession made to the police under Section 16153 of the Cr.
P.C., which should not admissible for conviction.54

9. In the case of Queen Empress v. Babu Lal,55 it was noted that there have been several
instances where police officers have used torture techniques to coerce confessions and
to secure convictions. It was held that if such confessions are made admissible, then
the citizens would not be protected from the cruelty of police officers. Likewise, in
the present case, Devi’s family has been tortured by the police to confess, such a
confession cannot be held as strong proof in a court of law.

50
Narayan Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 737.
51
Mahabir v. the State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 2503.
52
Chandran v. State, AIR 1978 SC 1574.
53
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 161.
54
Scope and Relevance of Statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.,
(https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/scjrajam.pdf) (last visited on Dec 3, 2022).
55
Queen Empress v. Babu Lal, (1899) ILR 21 All 106.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 22
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

10. In the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor,56 it was noted that the Court
does not differentiate between a statement made before, after, or during an
investigation. It is irrelevant when a statement is made, it is entirely inadmissible in a
court of law.
In the landmark case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. the State of Bihar,57 the evidentiary value
of confessional FIR under section 25 and section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
was scrutinized. The issue raised in the aforementioned case was whether the accused
can be convicted on the charges of murder based on his confessional statement. The
Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be convicted based on a confessional
statement given before the Police and it cannot be admissible in evidence alone as the
confessional statement must be corroborated by substantial evidence. The Supreme
Court held that the confession given in the FIR report by the accused to a police officer
is barred by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be admitted as
evidence. However, in the present case, the trial court has convicted the accused solely
based on the confession made before the police during the investigation.

11. In Vijendra v. State (NCT of Delhi),58 The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the
prosecution could not record the accused's statement because it violated Cr. P.C.,
which states that a statement made before a police officer during an investigation
cannot be used for any purpose unless it falls under the provisions of section 27 of 32
(1) of the Evidence Act. In the present case, the accused were harassed to make a
forced confession.

12. In State of UP v. Deoman Upadhaya,59 it was again emphasized by the Supreme Court
that, whether a person is in custody or outside, a confession made by him to a police
officer or the making of which is procured by inducement, threat or promise to have
reference to the charge against him and to proceed from a person in authority, is not
provable against him in any proceeding in which he is charged with the commission
of an offense. In the present case, the social reputation of Devi’s family has been
destroyed as a result of the forced confession made by them.

56
Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, (1939) 41 BOMLR 428.
57
Aghnoo Nagesia v. the State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119.
58
Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997) 6 SCC 171.
59
State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyay, AIR 1960 SC 1125.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 23
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

13. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the sole conviction of
Devi’s family cannot be based on the confession made by them to the police. The
family has denied the confession made by them. They allege that they had been forced
by the police to make such a confession.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 24
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

2.3 THAT RE-INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN

THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

1. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Cherela is empowered under
Section 48260 of Cr. P.C., to order reinvestigation in the present case. No proper
investigation has been conducted in the present case. The charge sheet and all
evidence have been manipulated by the police to impose serious criminal charges on
Devi’s family. Forced confessions have been made. Vague inferences have been
drawn by the police as a result of confirmation bias.

2. It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the court cannot convict the accused
without a proper investigation. No substantial evidence has been found as to the
connection or involvement of Devi’s family in the crime. A judgment in the interest
of justice cannot be passed based on the current investigation.

3.1 The Hon’ble High Court of Cherela is empowered under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to allow for reinvestigation.

3. Section 173(8)61 of the Cr.P.C. talks about the provision of ‘further investigation’. The
Supreme Court has ruled that the term "Further Investigation" within the meaning of
Section 173(8) CrPC is additional, more, or supplemental. 62 As a result, we can
conclude that the term "Further Investigation" refers to the continuation of the
previous investigation rather than a new investigation or reinvestigation that begins
from scratch, erasing the previous investigation. However, in the present case, no
sincere investigation had commenced yet.63 The accused were suspected merely out of
the incongruous inferences drawn by the police. Proper and thorough reinvestigation
ab initio is required in the present case.

60
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 482.
61
Cr.P.C., 1971, Sec. 173(8).
62
Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2009) 6 SCC 346.
63
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 25
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

4. In The State of Punjab v. CBI,64 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, where a charge
sheet has been filed, the High Court held that the same cannot limit or affect the
inherent power of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for fresh
investigation or reinvestigation is necessary to serve the ends of justice. This was a
case where senior functionaries of the State Police and political leaders were
involved, and justice would not be done if local police investigated, and thereby the
High Court gave direction under Section 482 CrPC for a fresh investigation by CBI.
In the present case too, a thorough investigation needs to be conducted by the CBI.

5. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India,65 the Supreme Court directed the CBI to
investigate the rape of Gajraula Nun. The investigation was carried out by the State
Police, who also filed a charge sheet. The Supreme Court directed the CBI to
investigate to do justice between the parties and instill confidence in the public mind.

6. In Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Admn.,66 the Supreme Court directed the trial court,
before which the charge sheet had already been submitted, to exercise its powers
under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct the CBI to conduct a proper investigation in the
matter after being convinced that the investigation by the Delhi Police against the
accused police officers on a charge of murder by torture in police custody was
partisan and was intended to shield the guilty policemen.

7. Even though a final report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in
CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi,67 the Central Government issued a notification under Section
5(1) read with Section 6 of the DSPE Act allowing the CBI to conduct the
investigation. Even though the Central Government's action was successfully
challenged in the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court, noting that the investigation
by the local police was inadequate, directed the CBI to conduct additional
investigations by the law.

8. In the present case, the accused have been convicted of serious charges of rape and
forced prostitution merely based on the confession made to the police by the accused
during the investigation. The only people interrogated were the local inhabitants who
64
The State of Punjab v. CBI (2011) 9 SCC 182.
65
Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 397.
66
'Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482.
67
CBI Vs. Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 26
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

told the police about Varun. The police refused to interrogate or inspect the
involvement of anyone else in the crime. This shows the biasness of the state police.
Therefore, a fresh investigation is needed by the CBI.

9. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that a reinvestigation is

needed in the present case in the interest of justice. The High Court should invoke its
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and order for reinvestigation by the CBI.

3.2 The Court cannot convict the accused without proper investigation.

10. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the present investigation
conducted by the police does not lead to the discovery of any substantial evidence
about the involvement of Devi’s family in the crime. The police had a bias toward the
family of the math tuition teacher. The police are supporting that family as they
belong to an educated and upper-middle-class family that maintains a good reputation
in society. This is a clear indication that the investigation is tainted and unfair.68

11. The accused has the right to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are
concomitant with the preservation of an accused's fundamental right under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution. The State has a broader obligation to maintain law and
order, public order, and the preservation of peace and harmony in society. Thus, a
victim of a crime has the same right to a fair investigation.69 In the present case, the
investigation has been unfair and tainted with biases.

12. In Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. the State of Maharashtra,70 the
Supreme Court has ruled that an accused's confession is inadmissible as evidence and
that a presumption can be established only from the facts, not from other
presumptions, through a process of probable and logical reasoning.

13. In SK Yusuf v. the State of West Bengal,71 The accused was charged with murdering a
girl and burying her body; the trial court convicted him based on his extrajudicial

68
Babu Bhai v. the State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254.
69
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs State of Punjab & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 984.
70
Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3258.
71
SK Yusuf v. the State of West Bengal, AIR 2011 SC 2283.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 27
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

confession, absconding for a few days after the incident, and the fact that he was last
seen at the scene of the crime. While the appellant argued that his final scene at the
location of occurrence and abundance would not raise a presumption of guilt and that
the extrajudicial confession could not be trusted.
The court found no evidence that the deceased was last seen with the accused before
her death. His mere presence at the occurrence site at the likely time of occurrence
would not raise any negative presumption. Extrajudicial confessions were also
corroborated, though there were significant differences. The mere existence of an
agreement could not be interpreted as a negative factor against the appellant. Because
the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete, the appellant was acquitted.

14. In Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr.,72 The Supreme Court made
certain observations on evidence: The term "evidence" has been used in common
parlance in three different senses: as equivalent to relevant; as equivalent to proof;
and as equivalent to the material on which Courts conclude the existence or non-
existence of disputed facts. In the present case, no relevant evidence has been
discovered. There are disputed facts in the case, the answers of which are to be
discovered only after a thorough investigation.

15. In State Bank of India v. Om Narayan Aggarwal,73 the Court emphasized that the
main feature of the rule of evidence is to limit the scope of the dispute before the
Court to those facts that have logical evidentiary value in determining a fact, to avoid
giving judgments based on illogical conclusions or prejudices, and to aid in the
administration of justice. In the present case, the lower court has convicted the
accused merely on the grounds of a confession made to the police during the
investigation. The police simply drew an inference, no evidence of logical relevance
had been found.

16. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that there is no strong
evidence that could prove the involvement of Devi’s family in the crime. There are
various fallacies in the case that needs to be investigated. Hence, a proper
reinvestigation is required in the interest of justice.

72
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 760.
73
State Bank of India v. Om Narayan Aggarwal, AIR 2011 All 169.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 28
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

2.4 THAT THERE EXIST SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR QUASHING THE

TRIAL.

1. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the decision of the trial court was
based on the confession of the accused to the police during the investigation and not
to a magistrate. The trial court has not followed the procedure established by law. The
confession is not admissible in any court. The accused are not liable for the crime that
they have been convicted of by the trial court.

2. It is humbly submitted that there exist sufficient grounds for quashing the trial, and
the High Court with its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. should quash
the decision of the lower court.

4.1 The trial court has not followed the procedure established by law.

3. It is humbly submitted that the decision of the trial court is solely based on the
confessions made by Devi’s family to the police, during the investigation. The police
have unfairly tortured the family, both physically and mentally. The right against self-
incrimination of the family enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
has been violated.

4. In the case of Champa Rani Mondal v. State of West Bengal,74 the Supreme Court
overturned the ruling of the trial court which had convicted the appellant solely based
on her confessional statement. The High Court had also affirmed her conviction. The
Supreme Court pointed out that her confession was not valid and could not be taken
into account. In the present case, police have used their power unjustly to force Devi’s
family to confess during the investigation. Otherwise, Devi’s family would never
have given any confession that would have endangered them unless they were
tortured by the police. They made it very clear by strongly opposing the allegations in
the public.

74
Champa Rani Mondel v. the State of West Bengal, (2001) 10 SCC 608.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 29
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

5. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr,75 the Supreme Court stated that a
person should be presumed and believed to be innocent until proven guilty. Hence, it
would be wrongful to convict Varun, as no guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. As per Section 53A of the CrPC, a proper examination of the person accused
of rape has to be conducted by a medical practitioner. Similarly, as per Section 164A
of the CrPC, a medical examination of the victim of rape has to be conducted, after
taking her consent, or a person who is authorized to consent on her behalf. However,
in the present case, the girl died without giving any dying declaration. No medical
examination of the body of the deceased or the accused has been done that could
strongly prove that Varun has raped Devi.

6. The Bombay High Court in Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra,76 stated
that "Section 5 of the PITA pertains to procuring, inducing, or taking [person] for
prostitution." When a person procures another person for prostitution or induces such
a person to go from any place with the intent that such person becomes an inmate of a
brothel, or when such a person is taken from one place to another to carry on
prostitution, the offense is complete." In the present case, Nisha and Madhavan had
been trying to become parents. They got Devi as a gift from the 16-year-old pregnant
girl Prabha. They had been paying for Devi’s education and sending her to school for
tuition. One could not even infer that they could use their child as a prostitute to earn.

7. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the procedure
established by law has not been followed by the trial court. Forced confessions have
been made and vague inferences have been drawn. Hence, the decision of the trial
court is flawed.

4.2 The High Court with its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. should
quash the decision of the trial court.

75
Supra, 22.
76
Bindo Ganesh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/ MH/ 2420 /2018.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 30
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

8. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the decision of the trial court is
void on various grounds. The High Court has the inherent power to quash the decision
of the lower court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 77

9. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,78 the Supreme Court stated that under Section
482 of the Cr. P.C., the high courts should fulfill the twin objectives of, preventing the
abuse of the court's process and of ensuring that the ends of justice are met. 79 In the
present case, the investigation and the confession cannot be considered as the sole
criteria for the conviction of the accused.80

10. The Supreme Court, in Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra,81 stated that,
“Nothing in the Code, not even Section 397 can affect the amplitude of the inherent
power preserved in Section 482. Where the impugned interlocutory order brings
about a situation that is an abuse of the process of the court then to secure the ends
of justice, interference by the High Court is necessary and nothing contained in
Section 397 (2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power of the High
Court.”

11. In RP Kapoor v. the State of Punjab,82 the Supreme Court discussed the three types of
cases in which criminal proceedings against a person can be quashed in this. The
classes. First, where there is a legal impediment to the institution or continuation of
criminal proceedings. Second, where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face
value and in their entirety, do not constitute an offense, and third, when the
allegations made constitute an offense but there is no evidence to back them up. 83 In
the present case, the third type of class would apply. 84 No evidence could back the
allegations put forth by the police.

77
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293.
78
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466.
79
Parbatbhai Ahir v. the State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 4843.
80
State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489.
81
Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.
82
RP Kapoor v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 862.
83
Narinder Singh v State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466.
84
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 31
SMT. SUBHADRA BHOSALE 2nd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced,
it most humbly prayed & implored before the Hon’ble SC of Indica, that it may be graciously
pleased to adjudge & declare –

1. The charge sheet, police reports, and evidences, all were manipulated by Police
Officers for imposing serious criminal charges on Devi’s family.

2. The sole conviction cannot be based on the confessions made by Devi’s family, as
they were tortured by the police to make such confession.

3. A re-investigation should be ordered in interest of justice by the Hon’ble High Court

by the CBI.

4. There exist sufficient grounds for quashing the trial of the lower court by the High
Court.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, & GOOD
CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANTS SHALL DUTY
BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

Respectfully Submitted

Counsel for Appellants

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT