LATE LALA DIP CHAND MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021 TEAM CODE: “DL 066”

1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.____/2020

[Under Article 32, read with Article 134 & 136 of the Indian Constitution, 1950]

In the matter of

RAGHAV…………..……………….....APPELLANT/ PETITIONER

V.

STATE……………………………….....………….RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ 3

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………..8
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..9
ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………...12
PLEADING/ ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………13
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 R/W ARTICLE 134 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?........................................................................................................................13
2. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 & 506 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE?..........................................................................................................21
3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE CASE OF THE
VICTIM BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT?......................................................................................................................32
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….35

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

2
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr.No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. ¶/ para. Paragraph
2. §/ Sec. Section
3. & And
4. AC Appeal Cases
5. AIR All India Reporter
6. AP Andhra Pradesh
7. Art. Article
8. Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
9. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
10. CONST. Constitution
11. Ed./ Edn. Edition
12. HC High Court
13. Mad. Madras
14. NVNCC National Virtual Moot Court Competition
15. Ori. Orissa
16. Raj. Rajasthan
17. R/W Read With
18. SC Supreme Court
19. SCC Supreme Court Cases
20. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
21. U.P. Uttar Pradesh
22. U/S Under Section
23. v. Versus
24. WP Writ Petition

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

3
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. Statutes Referred
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
B. Cases Referred
1. Re Anthony AIR 1960 Mad 308
2. Adam Triky v. State of Orrisa, 1993 (2) Crimes 33 (Orissa).
3. Aiah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 SC 827.
4. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCR 88.
5. Aman Kumar v.State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497: 2004 AIR SCW 827:
6. Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabaghana Behera, 1995 Cr LJ 3559 (Ori).
7. Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696.
8. Arjan Ram v State of Punjab AIR 1960 Punj 303
9. Arjun Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 1568
10. Baigana v. Deputy Collector of Consolidation, 1978 (3) SCR 509.
11. Baladin, 1956 Cr.L.J. 345 = AIR 1956 SC 181
12. Balwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 1080, 1987 Cr LJ 971 (SC).
13. Bharat Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, 1986 (4) SCC 767
14. Bhimrao Harnooji Wanjari v State of Maharashtra (1975) Mah LJ 660
15. Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869 = AIR 1951 SC 41.
16. Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 203, (2005) 1 SCC 88.
17. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 2071 ,2013 (7) SCC 675.
18. Empress v Hurree Mohan Mythee ILR 18 Cal 49, AIR 1960 Mad 308.
19. Fateh Chand v State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543, AIR 2009 SC 2729.
20. Gopi Shankar v State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 Raj 159
21. Gurdial Singh v State of Punjab 1980 Chand LR 108, p 111-12
22. Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209, 1990 Cr LJ 562
23. Gurcharan Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2661, 1973 Cr LJ 179 (SC)
24. Haripada Dey, AIR 1956 SC 757: 1956 SCR 639.
25. Harpal Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361, 1981 Cr LJ 1 (SC)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

4
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
26. Hemraj v. Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133 = AIR 1954 SC 462.
27. Jaganu Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh 2013 (2) Crimes 424 (Chh).
28. Jayasena Pradhan v State 2001 Cr LJ 1953 (Ori)
29. Joseph v State of Kerala (2000) JT 6 SC 195
30. Kaini Rajan v State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113, (2013) Cr LJ 4888(SC).
31. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42: AIR 2005 SC 921.
32. Karnel Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1995 SC 2472, (1995) 5 SCC 518.
33. Kishanlal v State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCC 159, AIR 1980 SC 1252
34. Kuldeep Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2988
35. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248
36. Mangila v State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 Cr LJ 2304 (MP).
37. Mangi Lal v State of Rajasthan 2002 Cr LJ 3687 (Raj);
38. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2573: (2012) 8 SCC
39. Mehtabsingh v. State of Gujarat, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 391 = AIR 1991 SC 1925.
40. M. K. Gopalan, 1955 (1) SCR 168 = AIR 1954SC 362.
41. M Loganathan v. State 2017 Cr LJ 633 (Mad) (DB).
42. Moti Chand v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 1916 (Raj).
43. Motiram Krishnmao v State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 Cr LJ 819, AIR 1955 Nag 121
44. Mukesh & ors. V. NCT Delhi (Nirbhaya Case) 2017, 6 SCC 1
45. Narayana Dutta v State 1980 Cr LJ 264, p 265 (Cal) (DB)
46. Narayan Tewari, 1954 Cr.L.J. 1808 = AIR 1954 SC 726.
47. Nar Singh, 1955 (1) SCR 238 = AIR 1954 SC 457.
48. Paltu Rai v State of Jharkhand 2005 Cr LJ 2824 (Jhar)
49. Parbata v State of Rajasthan 2006 Cr LJ 562 (SC).
50. Poonam v. SumitTanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384(1387)= 2010 (4) SCC 460.
51. Pooran Ram v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 91 (Raj).
52. Pradeep Kumar Verma v State of Bihar AIR 2007 SC 3059
53. Radhu v State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 Cr LJ 4704, p 4705 (SC), 2007 (11).
54. Ram Kumar, AIR 1996 SC 3185.
55. Rajendra Patel v State of Orissa 2013 (127) AIC 796 (Ori)
56. Rajiner v State of HP 2009 Cr LJ 4133 (SC), AIR 2009 SC 3022, 2009 (9) Scale 176.
57. Rajique v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 559, 1980 Cr LJ 1344 (SC)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

5
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
58. Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54, 1952 Cr LJ 547 (SC)
59. Ram Murti v State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1020, 1970 Cr LJ 991 (SC)
60. Ramsahai v State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 Cr LR 18, p 20 (MP High Court notes)
61. RK Aggarwal v State of Orissa AIR 1976 SC 1774, 1976 Cr LJ 1376 (SC);
62. Romesh Chandra Arora v. State, AIR 1960 SC 154.
63. Santabhai v. Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532
64. Santosh Moolya v State of Karnataka 2010 Cr LJ 2892, AIR 2010 SC 2247.
65. Satendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha v State of Bihar 2003 Cr LJ 392 (Pat)
66. Satpal alias Satnam Singh v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 564 (Raj).
67. Shah Phoolchand v. Parvathi Bai, 1989 (1) SCC 556 = AIR 1989 SC 865.
68. Sheikh Zakir v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 911, 1983 Cr LJ 1285 (SC)
69. Sidheswar Ganguly, AIR 1958 SC 143: 1958 SCR 749.
70. Smt. Rajni Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) (4) Supreme 173: AIR 2016 SC 2418.
71. State of A.P. v. Anjaneyulu AIR 1982 SC 1598
72. State of Chattisgarh v. Lekhram, (2006) 2 Crimes 91 (SC).
73. State of Himachal Pradesh v Cyan Chand AIR 2001 SC 2075, 2001 Cr LJ 2598 (SC)
74. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, 1993 (2) crimes 887 (SC).
75. State of Madhya Pradesh v Munna Choubey (2005) Cr LJ 913 (SC);
76. State of Maharashtra v Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658.
77. State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh 1996 AIR SCW 998
78. State of Rajasthan v Gaharoo 2001 Cr LJ 3672 (Raj)
79. State of Rajasthan v NK 2000 Cr LJ 2205 (SC).
80. State of U.P. v. Jashoda Nandan Gupta, 1974 (4) SCC 471 = AIR 1974 SC 753
81. State of Uttar Pradesh v Chhoteylal, (2011) 2 SCC 550, AIR 2011 SC 697.
82. State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994 Cr LJ 2104
83. Sushil Kumar Gupta, 1970 (1) SCC 505 = AIR 1971 SC 1543.
84. Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 Cr LJ 1204 (AP).
85. Tarachand Damu Surat, 1962 (2) SCR 775 = AIR 1962 SC 130.
86. Tarkeshwar Babu v State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 560.
87. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621 = (1963) 1 SCR 778.
88. Vijayan Pillai v State of Kerala (1989) 2 Ker LJ 234;
89. Virindar Kumar, 1955 (2) SCR 1013 = AIR 1956 SC 153.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

6
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
90. Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 4 Crimes 323 (SC).
91. Wahid Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 Cr LJ 517, p 520 (SC), AIR 2010 SC 1.
92. Yadu Kumar Patel v State of Chhattisgarh 2007 Cr LJ 2846 (Chhattis)
Websites Referred
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/
3. https://www.scconline.com/
C. Books Referred
a. Lexicons:
1. Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1964 ed.
2. Concise Oxford Dictionary, Sixth ed, 1976.
3. 22A Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law.
4. Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner Ed.,10th ed.,2014)
5. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (A P Cowie Indian Ed., 4th ed., 1989.
6. Oxford English Mini Dictionary 101 (Catherine Soanes Ed., 7th Ed.,2013)
7. P Ramanathan Aiyar’s, Concise Law Dictionary. (5th ed., 2016)
8. P Ramanathan Aiyar’s, Law Lexicon, The Encyclopedic Law Dictionary(4th ed., 2017)
9. Wharton’s, Concise Law Dictionary, (6th ed. 2013)
b. Books
1. 2 D. J. DE, THE Constitution of India (4th Ed. Asia Law House 2018)
2. 1 D. D. BASU, Shorter Constitution of India (15th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2018).
3. 6 D. D. BASU, Commentary on the Constitution of India (9th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2015)
4. 9 Halsbury’s Law of England Para (4th Ed. Butterworth 1998)
5. John Wright & Sons Ltd, Bristol LC Nickolls, The Scientific Investigation of Crime,
1956, Butterworths & Co ltd. (2nd ed., Editor, Gradwohl’s Legal Medicine 1968).
6. K. D Gaur Textbook on Indian Penal Code (7th ed. 2020).
7. M. P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2016)
8. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology(twenty-second edn)
9. P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, (14th ed., 2019).
10. 3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code (12th edition 2018).
11. R. V. KELKAR, Criminal Procedure (6th Ed. Eastern Book Company 2014).
12. V.K. Dewan, Law Relating to Offences Against Women (5th edition 2020).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

7
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsels representing the Respondents have endorsed their pleadings before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 32 read with Article 134 and Article 136 of the Constitution of
India in which this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction. The memorial is being submitted to set
the facts, arguments, and prayer on the behalf of the Respondents.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part. -
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

Article 134 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

-Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to Criminal Matter.-
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement, final order or sentence
in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced
him to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to
death

Article 136 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

-Special Leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in territory of
India.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

8
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Victim Profile (X):-Resident of : Village Ghaila, District Lucknow ;DOB: 01.01.2002; Age:
17 years 7 months (Matriculation) about 18 (Radiologically); Family: 2 younger brothers
Rahul and Bablu; Mother named Sarita Devi (PW-1, the complainant); father deceased 4
years back; Friends: Gauri (PW-6) Classmate
Accused Profile (Raghav): -Resident of:Village Ghaila, District Lucknow; Age: 18 years 6-
month (when offence commited) Family: Father Radhe Lal (principal of government
school); Mother Reema Devi; a younger sister Pooja. Relation of Accused and Victim: - (i)
Both are distant relatives and both are Pattidars (ii) A civil suit was pending in the city civil
court, Lucknow regarding a property.
➢ Victim Describes her Incident
1. On 14/8/19, (8 pm) victim went to ease herself near river Gomti. Someone forcibly caught
hold of her and took her inside the Sarpat and committed rape with her. Due to darkness, she
could not identify the person and inside she was threatened of dire consequences when she
tried to raise alarm. When she started weeping the suspect got scared and ran away, leaving
behind his pant & towel. Due to darkness, she was unable to see him but she suspects it to be
Raghav. She was raped 3 months back also by Raghav and now she discloses this because it’s
the second time. On 24/8/19, depressed victim disclosed the incident to her mother, reason to
hide the incident was told as the threat from accused, hence, she could not muster courage.
FIR lodged on 28/8/19 by Sarita Devi against Raghav as a suspect.
➢ Medical Examination on 28/8/19 done by PW-3 Dr. Parwati Singh
1. Time & Location: 5.00 p.m. in District Women Hospital, Lucknow. No injury, bleeding or
redness or tenderness and no discharge was present on private part.
2. Body had no injury; Hymen (old torn) and no bleeding, redness or congestion, no tenderness
was found; vagina admitted two fingers easily. Uterus (normal size).
3. Vaginal smear was taken and two slides were prepared for pathological test.
4. X-ray determination of age was done and radiologically she was about 18.
➢ Investigation by Police (PW-5 S.I. Rajeev Chaudhary)
1. Accused arrested on: 28/8/19; On inquiry he said that he left his pant & towel on the scene.
Clothes were collected (same day) and sent to lab on 29/8/2019. As per the Forensic Science
Lab report no spermatozoa was reported on pant & towel.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

9
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
➢ Statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C recorded on 2/9/2019
2. Accused used to follow the victim from school, occasionally used to hold hands (forcefully).
On 8/8/18 Raghav proposed to the victim, which when disclosed to the mother, ridiculed him.
In May, accused told her to run away with him otherwise she would face dire consequences.
Victim didn’t report this to her mother.
3. Mr. Jung Bahadur (PW-4) saw the accused (in nearby field) at 8:20 PM, where Raghav was
running in his underwear. Gauri (PW-6) further said she saw Raghav in month of May in
school, he was angry, threatened the victim to face consequences if she didn’t marry him.
4. As per Raghav’s statement, he loved X, wanted to marry her and he knew she also loved him
but didn’t disclose this due to family dispute. On 13/8/19 the victim called Raghav near the
cattle grazing field near river. On 14/8/19 she voluntarily went inside the sarpat and when
accused removed his clothes, she started crying. Shocked by such sudden behaviour he ran
away leaving behind his clothes. He said he has not committed rape on her and everything
happened with her consent and he was being framed falsely because of family dispute.
5. Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05/9/19 where she repeated the whole
incident but didn’t tell anything about the previous rape, when magistrate pointed this out,
she said he only teased her.
➢ Trial, HC & SC: --
(1) On 30/09/2019 charge-sheet was filed. (2) On 1/10/2019, Raghav filed an application for
Bail u/s 439 which was rejected. Raghav denied all the charges and claimed to be tried. (3)
On 28/10/2019 Raghav approached Allahabad High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
charge- sheet but again rejected. (4) Prosecution witnesses repeated their statement u/S 161;
accused examined u/S 313 Cr.P.C where he denied allegation and repeated his statement u/S
161. (5) Trial court, on 02/03/2020 convicted Raghav of 12 years Imprisonment and 12000/-
Rs fine. (6) On 18.03.2020, Raghav appealed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
(7) On 30/07/2020, The High Court suspended his sentence and released him on bail during
pendency of his appeal. (8) The division bench of High Court on 5/02/2021 dismissed the
appeal & convicted him. (9) Raghav has filed an appeal against conviction before Apex Court
of India. (10) The matter is listed on 30/07/2021 for admission as well as hearing.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

10
1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 R/W ARTICLE 134 & ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA?
2. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 & 506 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE?
3. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE CASE OF THE
VICTIM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

11
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 R/W ARTICLE 134 and 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not interfere with the appeal presented under
Article 32 read with Article 134 and Article 136 of the Constitution. The conviction
recorded by the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court was very much based on the
proper reasoning and after complete scrutinization of facts and evidences. The present
case neither mentions any application for or issuance of ‘Certificate of Appeal’ nor
has any grounds to obtain so. Mere dissatisfaction of the accused from the decision is
no reasonable ground to entertain the Appeal. The case does not even generate any
special and extraordinary circumstances raising substantial questions of law or
manifesting injustice on the accused, by infringing his fundamental rights, thus
forming no grounds to fit the Appeal under Article 134 and 136.
ISSUE II. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 & 506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE?
The counsel most humbly submits that the accused has committed the offences of
Rape and Criminal Intimidation, as defined under IPC. It is most respectfully
submitted that the accused has penetrated the victim, he has manipulated the victim,
he has threatened the victim, he has done the act against her will and consent and in a
position where she was not able to communicate her consent. Thus, the intention of
the accused appellant was to threaten the victim with injury to her person, reputation,
as well as her property, and as such, should be liable to be held punishable under the
offences of rape and criminal intimidation.

ISSUE III. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE CASE OF THE
VICTIM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?
It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of
prosecutrix doesn’t have material doubts. All doubts are circumstantial and these
doubts are justified by the counsel in the arguments before the Hon’ble court. Hence it
is pleaded not to entertain the case of the accussed on the grounds of benefit of doubt.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

12
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PLEADINGS/ ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32 R/W ARTICLE 134 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
1.1 Whether the Appeal under Article 134 read with Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution is Maintainable or Not?
1. The counsel on the behalf of the Respondents humbly submit that the conviction of
Raghav (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) recorded by the Trial Court and
Allahabad High Court shall not be interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
Article 1341 read with Article 1362, as their Appeal is not maintainable under the same.
2. The two clauses namely 134 (1) (a)3 and (b)4 of the Indian Constitution empowers the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to reverse the order of acquittal5, whereas, the present case
concerns reversal of conviction6 hence the mentioned clauses stand irrelevant in causa.
Generally, this right of appeal does not lie in any other case. The only exception that
can be created is when the Hon’ble High Court grants a ‘certificate’ and the case
becomes fit for appeal.
3. However, a certificate is impermissible on the question of facts 7 and there has to be a
proper reasoning laid down by the High Court in its order while granting ‘certificate’
for appeal,8 it having failed to do so, the Supreme Court can decline to accept the
appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution9.
4. If the High Court has no doubt as to the guilt of the accused and confirm the sentence
and conviction passed by the Trial Court, there will be no ground for entertaining an
application of certificate.10 In the current case, it is stated by the Allahabad High Court
that they find no illegality or perversity in the decision of the Trial Court and that the
Court does not intend to disturb these findings of Trial Court which are based upon
legal evidences and their fair interpretation.11

1
INDIAN CONST. art 134.
2
INDIAN CONST. art 136.
3
INDIAN CONST. art. 134 (1) (a).
4
INDIAN CONST. art. 134 (1) (b).
5
Tarachand Damu Surat, 1962 (2) SCR 775 = AIR 1962 SC 130.
6
¶ 27, page 6, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1 ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
7
Sushil Kumar Gupta, 1970 (1) SCC 505 = AIR 1971 SC 1543.
8
Baladin, 1956 Cr.L.J. 345 = AIR 1956 SC 181.
9
Nar Singh, 1955 (1) SCR 238 = AIR 1954 SC 457.
10
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1782 (4 th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).
11
¶ 26, page 6, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1 ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

13
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
5. In Sidheswar Ganguly12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that dissatisfaction of the
Appellant of having being fully heard was no ground for the grant of a Certificate by
High Court and that Certificate should not be granted on a mere question of facts. The
Court upheld the objection raised by the respondents on the Certificate of fitness
granted by the High Court erroneously. In the current case, the Appellant has filed this
Appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the Allahabad High Court13 but his mere
dissatisfaction should not be the reason for Supreme Court to admit his appeal.
6. In pari causa, Haripada Dey14, the Court held that a High Court exceeds its power of
granting Certificate of fitness and is not justified in sending up the case for further
consideration by the Supreme Court. That, the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant a
certificate under Article 134 (1)(c) on a mere question of fact, namely, whether there
was sufficient evidence to support the guilt of the accused, it is not justified in passing
on such a question to the Supreme Court for further consideration thus converting the
Supreme Court into a Court of Appeal on facts.
7. It was held in Kuldeep Singh15 that Supreme Court can decline to interfere in case of
concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below and the evidence of the eye witness
also supported the finding. In the current case, there is a concurrent finding by both the
lower Courts that the offences charged against the accused have been committed16 and
evidences of witnesses PW- 417 and PW- 618 support the same thereby leaving no scope
for Supreme Court to interfere.
8. The right conferred upon the aggrieved party under Article 134(1)(c) is to make an
application for the Certificate and it is upon the High Court to consider whether the
certificate of fitness is to be issued or not.19 The facts of the current case are silent upon
the making of any such Application from the side of the Appellants. However, the
present case, in no circumstances, is fit for an Appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

12
Sidheswar Ganguly, AIR 1958 SC 143: 1958 SCR 749.
13
Supra Note 6.
14
Haripada Dey, AIR 1956 SC 757: 1956 SCR 639.
15
Kuldeep Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2988.
16
¶ 23 & 26, page 6, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1 ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
17
¶ 13, page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1 ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
18
¶ 14, page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
19
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1789 (4 th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

14
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
9. The scope of appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution is undisputedly very limited.
Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide
discretionary power on Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. In a criminal
appeal with special leave, the Supreme Court will interfere only when there is an
exceptional ground.20
10. The Supreme Court in Narayan Tewari21 declined to entertain in an appeal brought by
special leave on observing that the contention involves an investigation into pure
question of fact. The Supreme Court would not be justified in disturbing the decision of
the Courts below on special leave merely on the ground that perhaps a different
inference could be drawn from the evidence of the case22 or two views are reasonably
possible.23 In current case, based on a mere possibility that the evidences produced by
the prosecution24 can be inferred otherwise forms no ground for the admissibility of this
appeal.
11. Where the judgements of the Courts below are not based upon material irregularities 25
or infirmities26 and based on pure finding of fact and appreciation of evidence, it does
not call for interference in exercise of power under Art. 136 of the Constitution27,
questioning the credibility of witnesses28, or to undertake detailed scrutiny of the
evidence and to re-appreciate the same29, unless it is shown by error apparent on the
record that substantial and grave injustice has been done to them30.

20
Virindar Kumar, 1955 (2) SCR 1013 = AIR 1956 SC 153.
21
Narayan Tewari, 1954 Cr.L.J. 1808 = AIR 1954 SC 726.
22
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1788 (4th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).
23
State of U.P. v. Jashoda Nandan Gupta, 1974 (4) SCC 471 = AIR 1974 SC 753; State of A.P. v. Anjaneyulu
AIR 1982 SC 1598.
24
¶ 6, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
25
Aiah v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1989 SC 827.
26
Mehtabsingh v. State of Gujarat, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 391 = AIR 1991 SC 1925.
27
Hemraj v. Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133 = AIR 1954 SC 462.
28
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1801 (4 th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).
29
Shah Phoolchand v. Parvathi Bai, 1989 (1) SCC 556 = AIR 1989 SC 865.
30
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp. SCC 241 = AIR 1988 SC 696.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

15
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
In the present case, the recording of the conviction of the accused is based upon proper
construction of facts and complete scrutinization of material evidences. The FIR was
registered as soon as the offence was reported31, the prosecutrix was sent for the
medical examination at the earliest32, the crime scene was investigated33, evidences
were scientifically examined34 and statements were recorded according to the
procedural code35 and case was duly brought to the cognizance of the Court36.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there has been any kind of departure from law
during the trial and investigation of the case.
12. The position of law was also made clear in the case of Hemraj37, where the Court held
that unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial
and grave injustice has been done, the findings are against the weight of evidence or
vitiated by error of law38 and the case presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant
of review of the decision, the Court does not exercise its overriding power.
13. In pari causa Baigana39 it was held that this Court was more than a Court of Appeal. It
exercises power only when there is supreme need. It is not the fifth court of appeal, but
the final court of the nation, and therefore even if legal flaws might be electronically
detected, it may not interfere save as otherwise to manifest injustice or substantial
question of public importance.
It is respectfully submitted that the findings of the facts by the Trial Court and Allahabad
High Court are neither perverse nor contain any such illegality which may render the findings
not reliable, thus, shall not be interfered with.

31
¶ 5, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
32
Supra Note 24.
33
¶ 8, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
34
Supra note 24.
35
¶ 9-16, page 3-5, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
36
¶ 16, page 5, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1 ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
37
Supra Note 27.
38
Ram Kumar, AIR 1996 SC 3185.
39
Baigana v. Deputy Collector of Consolidation, 1978 (3) SCR 509.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

16
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
1.2 Whether the Fundamental Rights of the Accused are being Violated or not thereby
Invoking Article 32?
14. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be invoked when
fundamental rights are violated40 and it is exclusively related to the enforcement of
fundamental right.41 It is only when fundamental rights are infringed, that the petition
under Article 32 can be entertained.42
15. Generally, a judicial decision pronounced by a Court is not assumed to violate the
Fundamental Rights of a party. Judicial orders passed by the Court in, or in relation
to, proceeding pending before it is not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ
under Article 32 of the Constitution.43
16. The question whether a person has locus standi to file proceedings under Article 32
depends mostly and often on whether he possessed a fundamental right and that right
is violated.44
17. In case of M. K. Gopalan45, it was held that the Supreme Court would not encourage
the practice of direct approach to the Supreme Court, save for good reasons, in
matters which have been taken to the High Court and found against, without obtaining
leave therefrom. In the current case, the decision of the Allahabad High Court was
found against the accused, upholding the decision of the Ld. Trial Court46 and there
has been no mention of any kind of leave granted to the accused to present this appeal,
thus making it inadmissible.
18. In Bihar Legal Support Society47, it was held that the question whether the injustice
has been done or not is within the administration of the Chief Justice and the Supreme
Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 32, cannot give any direction in that behalf.
The Supreme Court was never intended to be a regular Court of Appeal against the
order made by the High Court or the Court of Session or the Magistrate.

40
Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869 = AIR 1951 SC 41.
41
Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1621 = (1963) 1 SCR 778.
42
Santabhai v. Maharashtra, AIR 1958 SC 532.
43
Poonam v. SumitTanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384(1387)= 2010 (4) SCC 460.
44
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1500 (4 th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).
45
M. K. Gopalan, 1955 (1) SCR 168 = AIR 1954SC 362.
46
Supra Note 11.
47
Bharat Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, 1986 (4) SCC 767 = AIR 1987 SC 38.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

17
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
1.2.1 Whether Right of the Accused under Article 21 has been Violated or Not?
19. Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to “procedure established by law”.48 The expression ‘procedure
established by law’ extends to both substantive as well as procedural law.49
20. The Supreme Court overruling its judgement of the Gopalan case50, and taking a
wider interpretation of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi51, ruled that the right to life and
personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided the procedure
prescribed by that law is reasonable, fair and just. The counsel most humbly submits
that the investigation in the current case was carried out according to the provisions
laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court as well as the
division bench of High Court have rightly relied upon the evidences collected and
directed the conviction of the accused.
Thus, the present appeal is not maintainable in this Court as no infringement of
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the accused is carried out according to the
“procedure established by law”.
21. It was said in the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam52, that the precious right guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials,
detenus and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure established
by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. The right to
life of a citizen cannot be put in abeyance on his arrest. The fundamental right under
Article 21 is not an absolute right. Rather, restrictions can be imposed, on reasonable
grounds, in order to investigate the case and to find the real culprit. It may be required
that accused shall be arrested and interrogated and also has to be prevented from
threatening and influencing witnesses and evidences. In the current case, the
prosecutrix was threatened by dire consequences on various occasions. Thus, there
was a reasonable ground to arrest the primary suspect in order to prevent him from
further threatening the victim.

48
INDIAN CONST. art 21.
49
M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1128 (7 th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2016).
50
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCR 88.
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248: (1978) 2 SCJ 350.
52
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 2573: (2012) 8 SCC 1.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

18
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
22. Thus, in the present case, the accused, having failed to prove his innocence, cannot
contend that his conviction was not carried out according to the ‘procedure
established by law’.
1.2.1.1 ‘Bail’ as a Right under Article 21
23. The counsel humbly states that rape tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme
honor of a woman and is a crime against the entire society. Just as liberty is precious
to an individual, so is the society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order.
Both are equally important. And courts are under an obligation to consider larger
societal interest than the interest of an individual. Thus, the conviction of Raghav
shall be upheld so as to maintain the societal interest as he is an offender of a serious
and heinous crime of Rape and such a person has no right to roam freely.
24. The Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar53 held that incarceration of persons charged
with non-bailable offences during pendency of trial cannot be questioned as violative
of Article 21 as it is authorized by the law. Rape being a non-bailable offence,54 bail,
in these cases is not a right of the accused but the discretion of the Court. 55
25. The Supreme Court should not, in ordinary cases, save in exceptional cases, interfere
with the orders of the High Court. Such orders by the Hon’ble High Courts should be
considered final. As such, every ordinary case does not require attention of the Apex
Court, with reference to grating some special leave and interference.56

53
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42: AIR 2005 SC 921.
54
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Schedule I.
55
R. V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 291 (6th Ed. Eastern Book Company 2014).
56
2 D. J. DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1813 (4 th Ed. Asia Law House 2018).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

19
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
26. There are various reasonable grounds57 for rejecting the bail of an accused such as:
1) The nature of the crime being such grave and heinous.
2) The possibility of the accused repeating such acts and being dangerous to the
society because of the repetitive nature of his acts.
3) The possibility of accused influencing or threatening the witness which is
clearly evident from his past behavior against her.58
4) Existence of strong prima facie case against him.59
5) The danger of the accused person absconding if released on bail.

In the present case, all these grounds find validity against the accused having committed such
a grave and heinous crime of Rape and having a history of teasing and assaulting the
prosecutrix on earlier occasions. It is a possibility that the accused, if released on bail, will try
to hinder the investigation of the case as his non- tolerant behavior depicts. Thus, the
rejection of bail application of the accused in this case was valid for reasons of proper
investigation of the case and administration of justice, coupled with the erratic and non-
tolerant behavior of the accused, thereby violating no fundamental right of the accused.

57
R. V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 301 (6 th Ed. Eastern Book Company 2014).
58
¶ 4, 5, 9 , 12 and 14, page 2, 3 & 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
59
¶ 20, page 5, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

20
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ISSUE II. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 & 506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE?
2.1 The Accused Committed the Offence of Rape as Punishable under Section 376 of
The Indian Penal Code.
27. It is most respectfully and humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
accused is guilty of the offence of rape and hence is liable to be punished under
Sec.376 (Dealing with the punishment of Rape) of the Indian Penal Code,1860
(hereinafter referred as the IPC for the sake of brevity).
28. Sec. 37560 defines the offence of Rape
A man is said to commit “rape” if he—
(a) penetrates61 his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a
woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object62 or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the
vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other
person;or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the
vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him
or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with
him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven
descriptions: —
1. Against her will63
2. Without her consent 64
3. With consent obtained by putting her or any other person in whom she is interested
under fear of death or of hurt

60
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375
61
Tarkeshwar Babu v State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 560.
62
Mukesh & ors. V. NCT Delhi (Nirbhaya Case) 2017, 6 SCC 1
63
Pradeep Kumar Verma v State of Bihar AIR 2007 SC 3059; Kaini Rajan v State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113,
(2013) Cr LJ 4888(SC); State of Uttar Pradesh v Chhoteylal, (2011) 2 SCC 550, AIR 2011 SC 697 [LNIND
2011 SC 73].
64
See Re Anthony AIR 1960 Mad 308; Arjan Ram v State of Punjab AIR 1960 Punj 303; Gopi Shankar v State
of Rajasthan AIR 1967 Raj 159; Bhimrao Harnooji Wanjari v State of Maharashtra (1975) Mah LJ 660; Vijayan
Pillai v State of Kerala (1989) 2 Ker LJ 234;

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

21
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
4. With consent but given under misconception of fact that the man was her husband
5. Consent given by reason of unsoundness of mind, or undue influence of intoxication
or any stupefying or unwholesome substance
6. Women under eighteen years of age, with or without her consent65
7. When women cannot communicate consent66
I. Accused has committed rape on victim67
29. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court; that on the night of 14th August
2019 the accused had committed rape on the victim near the bank of river Gomti68 and
when the victim tried to raise alarm, the accused threatened her with dire
consequences.69 The Apex Court in Yadu Kumar Yadav70 said ‘penetrate’ means to
‘find access into or through, pass through’.
II. Complete penetration & injuries are immaterial
30. In Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and toxicology,71 it has been stated that “to
constitute the offence of rape, there doesn't need to be complete penetration of penis
with emission of semen and rupture of the hymen. Partial penetration of the penis
within the Labia majora or the vulva or pudenda, with or without emission of semen,
or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law.”
Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.72
31. Injuries are not always a sine qua non to prove a charge of rape.73It is not always
necessary that in all cases of sexual assault, injuries must be there on the body of the
victim.74

65
Empress v Hurree Mohan Mythee ILR 18 Cal 49; Re Anthony 1960 Cr LJ 927, AIR 1960 Mad 308.
66
Added by the Criminal Law Amendment Act (13 of 2013).
67
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 (a), (c), (d).
68
¶ 3, page 2 & ¶ 10 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
69
¶ 4, page 2, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
70
Yadu Kumar Patel v State of Chhattisgarh 2007 Cr LJ 2846 (Chhattis)
71
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, twenty-second edn, p 495
72
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3238(12th edition 2018).
73
Joseph v State of Kerala (2000) JT 6 SC 195; Jayasena Pradhan v State 2001 Cr LJ 1953 (Ori); Harpal Singh v
State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361, 1981 Cr LJ 1 (SC); Santosh Moolya v State of Karnataka 2010 Cr
LJ 2892, AIR 2010 SC 2247, (2010) 5 SCC 445.
74
Mangi Lal v State of Rajasthan 2002 Cr LJ 3687 (Raj); State of Himachal Pradesh v Cyan Chand AIR 2001
SC 2075, 2001 Cr LJ 2598 (SC).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

22
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
When injuries are suffered by the prosecutrix in defending herself and offering
resistance to the accused such abrasions or bruises get heal within 2 to 3 days of the
incident and the absence of visible marks of injuries is not necessarily evidence of the
falsity of allegation or evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix or that she
had offered no resistance at the time of the commission of the crime.75 It is submitted
that, on 14th August 2019, the victim was threatened by the accused, and therefore she
was not in a mental state to disclose it to her mother76, for when she disclosed the
incident and her medical examination happened, 14 days had already passed,77 which
was enough to heal her injuries both internal and external.
32. It is submitted that penetration is the sine qua non for an offence of rape.78The
depth of penetration is immaterial79 so is the complete penetration, to make out an
offence of rape,80 injuries being inconsequential.81 Intercourse is supposed to
complete upon proof of penetration.82 Hymen can get ruptured or torn due to heavy
exercise, horse riding, cycling etc., So, ‘the old torn hymen part’ of the medical
report83 is completely immaterial. Further absence of bleeding, redness, or congestion,
and no tenderness is obvious to appear prima facie in victim’s case as she was
examined after 14 days of the incident and on account of lapse of time, the injuries
have healed and marks vanished.84 Hence, no blood or injuries were reported during
an examination. Also, the victim’s vagina admitted two fingers easily indicating that
penetration did happen, though it is not necessary that the penis of the accused needs
to have injuries during the sexual intercourse.85

75
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3242 (12th edition 2018).
76
Supra note 69
77
¶ 6, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
78
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3191 (12th edition 2018).
79
Wahid Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 Cr LJ 517, p 520 (SC), AIR 2010 SC 1, (2010) 2 SCC 9, 2009
(14) Scale 220.
80
M Loganathan v. State 2017 Cr LJ 633 (Mad) (DB).
81
Fateh Chand v State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 543 [LNINDU 2009 SC 6], AIR 2009 SC 2729.
82
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, 834 (14th ed., 2019).
83
Supra note 77.
84
State of Rajasthan v NK 2000 Cr LJ 2205 (SC).
85
Ramsahai v State of Madhya Pradesh 1980 Cr LR 18, p 20 (MP High Court notes)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

23
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
33. In Paltu Rai’s case86, the prosecutrix was examined by the doctor on the fifth day of
the occurrence, and the absence of any external or internal injury on her private part or
any seminal stains, was held to be of no consequence.
Hence, it is respectfully submitted to this Hon’ble Apex Court, that the accused had
penetrated the victim and the presence or absence of injuries on the body of victim are
completely immaterial and the conviction of the accused should be upheld.
III. The Absence of Spermatozoa Cannot Negate Possibility of Rape
34. It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, that in Adam
Triky87& Raghu Bir’s88 case it was stated that the absence of spermatozoa could not
be said to be a condition in favour of the accused.89 In Parbata’s case,90where the
clothes of the accused were seized and examined after four days of the occurrence of
the crime, the absence of semen was held of no consequence. Similarly, in hac causa
the clothes of the accused were examined on the 17th day91 from the incident, thus the
absence of genetic substances is completely immaterial. The sine qua non of the
offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation.92
IV. There is a manipulation of the victim by the accused
35. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the victim was manipulated by the
accused on the night of 14th August 2019. The victim went to ease herself where she
was held from the back, her mouth was shut by the hands of the accused and she was
dragged inside the sarpat.93 Dragging means ‘to pull along with effort and
difficulty’,94 there being a forceful manipulation of the victim’s body towards the
crime scene by pulling her body by suddenly giving her shock from behind.
36. As per victim’s statement, inside the sarpat her mouth was covered again in order to
prevent her from raising alarm, which further indicates that the accused repeatedly
manipulated her mouth to ease his act of penetration.95

86
Paltu Rai v State of Jharkhand 2005 Cr LJ 2824 (Jhar)
87
Adam Triky v. State of Orrisa, 1993 (2) Crimes 33 (Orissa).
88
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, 1993 (2) crimes 887 (SC).
89
V.K. Dewan, Law Relating to Offences Against Women 553 (5th edition 2020).
90
Parbata v State of Rajasthan 2006 Cr LJ 562 (SC).
91
¶ 5&6, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
92
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3239 (12th edition 2018).
93
¶ 3 page 2 &¶ 11 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
94
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 364 (A P Cowie Indian Ed., 4th ed., 1989).
95
¶ 11 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

24
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
V. Accused did the act without the will96 and consent97 of the victim and forced her
under conditions where she was unable to communicate her consent98
37. It is submitted that an act done ‘against will’ can be said an act is done ‘without
consent’.99An offending act is said to be done ‘against will’ of a woman when it is
done despite her resistance and opposition.100 ‘Will’ and ‘consent’, despite being of
overlapping nature, are distinct.101 Consent means an unequivocal voluntary
agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.102
It is further submitted that the mouth of victim was forcefully closed by the accused
outside as well as inside the sarpat, due to which, the victim was unable to signify her
consent by words or any verbal communication, and by crying during the act, she
communicated it non-verbally.
38. When a woman is unable to put up resistance, consent cannot be inferred.103 On the
night of 14th August, the victim was forced in the act and in no manner consented to
the intercourse.
39. She was not given a chance to signify her refusal or consent to the accused and after
the victim started crying, the accused had withdrawn from the act and ran away in
fear. Further, every resistance need not necessarily be accompanied by some injury on
the body of the victim, and its absence cannot be adopted as a formula for inferring
consent on the part of the prosecutrix, holding that she was a willing party to the act
of sexual intercourse. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 104
And the facts and circumstances of the case justify the statements of the victim. She
did not resist as she was threatened to be killed, hence, she did not incur any physical
injuries on her body.

96
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 clause ‘firstly’.
97
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 clause ‘secondly’.
98
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 clause ‘seventhly’.
99
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 203, (2005) 1 SCC 88.
100
Pradeep Kumar Verma v State of Bihar AIR 2007 SC 3059;KainiRajan v State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 113,
(2013) Cr LJ 4888(SC).
101
P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, 835 (14th ed., 2019).
102
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 ‘Explanation 2’.
103
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3183 (12th edition 2018).
104
Karnel Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1995 SC 2472, (1995) 5 SCC 518, 1995 AIR SCW 3644.)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

25
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
40. Occasional refusal of the victim to the marriage proposal of the accused105 signifies
that she was not interested in the accused. Also, she did not have her will in the act
that happened on 14th August 2019. Where a murderer destroys the body of his
victim, the rapist destroys the very soul of the helpless female.106
41. It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that rape is an
obnoxious act of the highest order.107 A physical scar may heal up but the mental scar
will always remain.108The victim is inflicted with a deep sense of some deathless
shame.109 It is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in society 110, as an
assault on mind and privacy of the victim111 and it reduces her confidence
level.112Hence it is pleaded before the Hon’ble court that the accused is guilty and the
Hon’ble Court should uphold its conviction and dismiss the current appeal of the
accused.
VI. Accused threatened the victim113
42. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that accused had occasionally threatened the
victim. To threaten means “a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another
or another's property, esp. one that might diminish a person's freedom to act
voluntarily or with lawful consent”.114 The accused use to stalk the victim back to her
home from school. According to her statement, he had, on 08.08.2018, proposed the
victim after which he was ridiculed by the mother of the victim.115
43. In the month of May 2019, only three months before the crime, the accused told the
victim to run away with him and threatened her ‘if she doesn’t comply with him, she
will face dire consequences’116.

105
¶ 9, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
106
State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh 1996 AIR SCW 998; Rajiner v State of HP 2009 Cr LJ 4133 (SC), AIR 2009
SC 3022, 2009 (9) Scale 176.
107
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3174 (12th edition 2018).
108
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3175 (12th edition 2018).
109
State of Madhya Pradesh v Munna Choubey (2005) Cr LJ 913 (SC); Rajendra Patel v State of Orissa 2013
(127) AIC 796 (Ori) (Rape destroys the whole personality of a woman).
110
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 2071 ,2013 (7) SCC 675.
111
V.K. Dewan, Law Relating to Offences Against Women 508 (5th edition 2020).
112
V.K. Dewan, Law Relating to Offences Against Women 509 (5th edition 2020).
113
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 clause ‘thirdly’.
114
Henry Campbell Black, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1708 (Bryan A. Garner Ed.,10th ed.,2014).
115
¶ 6, page 3, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
116
¶ 4, page 2, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

26
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
Further, the incident that happened has been witnessed by a classmate of the victim
named Gauri117 (PW-6), and it has been added that the accused was angry when he
visited the school of victim118 which again signifies that the accused had a non-
tolerant attitude towards the rejection.
44. It is submitted, that the victim is a school-going girl and a minor. The occasional
threats given by the accused had channelized fear in the mind of the victim. On the
day of the incident, the accused even threatened to kill the victim if she shouted to
alert nearby helpers. The victim was frightened and could not muster the courage to
disclose this incident. It was on 24th August 2019 when her mother asked the victim,
where she disclosed the incident. The death threats from the accused caused delay in
filing the FIR. Further, on the night of the incident, she was caught from behind, in
the dark, and any person would land in a state of shock and fear by such sudden
actions hampering the ability to reflex.
VII. No False Rape case was instituted under the veil of existing family dispute
45. In Balwant Singh’s case,119 it was held that because of family enmity the accused
was falsely framed is an absurdity. Also, in Satpal alias Satnam Singh’s case,120 the
Court highlighted that it cannot be stated that because of the litigation or enmity, the
father of the prosecutrix will involve his daughter to falsely implicate the accused.
Similarly, in Pooran Ram’s case121 it was held that a pending case is no ground to
presume that the false case was instituted on the accused by the mother of the
prosecutrix.
46. In Mangila’s case122 it was held that “the entire family would, for no reason,
combine to demolish their social reputation and shatter the future marriage
prospects of their child to rope the accused in a crime under Section 376, so the
defence plea of false implication due to pre-existing animosity is unacceptable.”123
47. On the contrary, the accused and his father were the ones who constantly pressurized
the victim’s mother Sarita to drop the civil suit.124

117
¶ 21 page 5, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
118
¶ 14 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
119
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 1080, 1987 Cr LJ 971 (SC).
120
Satpal alias Satnam Singh v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 564 (Raj).
121
Pooran Ram v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 91 (Raj).
122
Mangila v State of Madhya Pradesh 1998 Cr LJ 2304 (MP).
123
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3229 (12th edition 2018).
124
¶ 12 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

27
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
Hence, delay in filing of the FIR cannot be taken as a ground for the planning of the
false rape case as the victim was threatened by the accused not to disclose this
incident to anyone.125
VIII. The Victim is under 18 126
48. It is submitted that the accused and victim are distant relatives and belong to the same
pattidar.127 As per her matriculation certificate she was born on 1st January 2002128
therefore, on the date of alleged incident she was of 17 years 7 months & 13 days
old and the accused was 18 years 6 months old.129 It has been stated in the
radiological test conducted by the PW-3 Dr. Parwati Singh130 that the victim is about
18 years of age.131 In Vishnu alias Undrya’s 132 case it was held that the doctor’s
opinion in the ossification test for determination of age can vary and cannot form the
basis of determination of age.133 In Lekhram’s134 case it was held that an entry in the
school register is not conclusive but it has evidentiary value and is admissible in terms
of Sec. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.135
49. It is further submitted that the age of the victim is mentioned about 18 in the medical
report.136 The usage of the word ‘about’ signifies doubt in completion of the age of
18. Further in the recent case of Parag Bharti,137 it was held that if the Matriculation
certificate is found reliable, it has to be treated as conclusive proof of age.
50. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that according to radiology as well
as matriculation certificate the victim is found to be under 18 years of age and her
consent was not taken during the act and hence the accused is guilty of the offence of
rape.

125
¶ 3, page 2;¶ 12 & 11 page 4, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
126
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 375 clause ‘sixthly’.
127
¶ 1, page 2, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
128
ibid
129
ibid
130
¶ 21 page 5, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
131
Supra note 128
132
Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 4 Crimes 323 (SC).
133
V.K. Dewan, Law Relating to Offences Against Women 532 (5th edition 2020).
134
State of Chattisgarh v. Lekhram, (2006) 2 Crimes 91 (SC).
135
Arjun Singh v. State of H.P., AIR 2009 SC 1568.
136
Supra note 128
137
Parag Bharti (Juvenile) thrgh. Legal Gurdian Mother – Smt. Rajni Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) (4) Supreme
173: AIR 2016 SC 2418: 2016 CrLJ 2928: 2016 5 Scale 298

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

28
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
IX. The Case of Aman Kumar V. State of Haryana138 Is Pari Causa of The Current
Case
51. Brief facts of the case are-
• When the prosecutrix was nearing the field to ease herself at about 10.00 a.m., on
August 5, 1993, the accused persons caught hold of her right arm and dragged her
forcibly to the field.
• One of the accused shut her mouth with her chunni and both the accused persons
thereafter forcibly raped her, and also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the
incident to anybody. She went to her house weeping and narrated the incident to
her mother. One Karan Singh had seen the accused persons going away from
the field.
• The mother then described the incident to a member of the Panchayat, followed by
filing of a report on August 7, 1993, and commencement of investigation. The
prosecutrix was medically examined and the accused persons after arrest were also
medically examined.
• Findings of the court in above case- To find an accused guilty of an attempt with
intent to commit a rape, it is necessary that when the accused laid hold of the
prosecutrix, he not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he
intended to do so at all events, notwithstanding any resistance on her part.
• It is most respectfully submitted that the accused has penetrated the victim, he has
manipulated the victim, he has threatened the victim, he has done the act against her
will and consent and in a position where she was not able to communicate her
consent. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court should not entertain the plea of the
accused in this case as there is no error in the findings of the lower Courts.

138
Aman Kumar v.State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497: 2004 AIR SCW 827: 2004 Cr LJ 1399

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

29
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
2.2 The Accused Committed the Offence of Criminal Intimidation as Punishable under
Section 506 of The Indian Penal Code.
52. The counsel on behalf of the respondents humbly submits before this Hon’ble court
that the accused appellant has been rightly charged with criminal intimidation, as
defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
53. Criminal Intimidation is defined as:
“Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or
to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation”139
54. The counsel submits that by a plain reading of the provision, it is drawn out that for a
person to be punished for the aforementioned crime140, he should threaten another
with injury to his person, reputation or property and that there should be an intention
that such a threat will be carried out unless complied with. The Supreme Court141,
further affirmed the above observation and laid down the following essentials that
need to be fulfilled in order for there to be a case against a person for criminal
intimidation:
i. There should be an actual act of threatening another with injury to
his person, reputation or property
ii. The intent with which the threatening is done, either to cause
alarm or to hinder the performance of a legal obligation.
Thus, in order to convict a person under the said provision of law, it is essential that he is
found to have practiced some criminal intimidation or employed any other method of
compulsion.142
55. The counsel submits here that the previous issues clearly established the fact that the
intention of the accused was to injure the person and property of the victim, and he, in
doing so, had committed the offence of rape and criminal intimidation.

139
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 503.
140
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) § 506.
141
Romesh Chandra Arora v. State, AIR 1960 SC 154.
142
3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code 3126 (12 th edition 2018).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

30
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
The intention of the accused appellant can be clearly derived off of the statements
given by the victim143, and of the PW- 1, Sarita Devi.144 The plain reading of the
statements, help construe the fact that the accused appellant had threatened the victim
with dire consequences, which frightened the victim to the point that she chose not to
report the incident to her own mother. Further, during the commission of the offence
of rape, the accused further threatened the victim with death, if she tried to shout to
defend herself.
56. The victim also stated that the accused appellant had, on many occasions, forcibly
tried to hold her hands. In this regards, PW-1, i.e., mother of the victim, in her
statement also stated that the accused appellant used to keep an evil eye on her
daughter, with the primary intention to compel the PW-1 to withdraw an existing civil
suit (property), which the accused appellant and his father, Radhe Lal, were
pressurizing them for.
57. Further, it was pointed out by the PW-1 that till the victim disclosed the incident to
her, her behaviour had changed and she did not seem as her usual self. In the case of
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was stated that the
degree of alarm may vary in different cases, but the essential matter is that it is of a
nature and extent to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and take
away from his acts the elements of free voluntary action which alone constitutes
consent.145 The incident alarmed146 the victim to the point of change in her behaviour.
In the case of Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabaghana Behera147, it was held that
intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim and whether he/ she is
alarmed or not is of no consequence, which as per the investigations of the present
case are found out to be malign and with malafide intention.
Thus, the intention of the accused appellant was to threaten the victim with injury to her
person, reputation, as well as her property, which, as per preceding arguments, he actually
committed, and as such, should be liable to be held punishable under the offence of criminal
intimidation.

143
¶ 9, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
144
¶ 12, MOOT PREPOSITION, 1ST Shri R. K. Pandey Memorial NVMCC, 2021.
145
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 Cr LJ 1204 (AP).
146
P Ramanathan Aiyar’s, Concise Law Dictionary. 52, (5th ed., 2016)
147
Amulya Kumar Behera v Nabaghana Behera, 1995 Cr LJ 3559 (Ori).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

31
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ISSUE III. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE CASE OF THE
VICTIM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?
58. It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of
the prosecutrix is proved beyond the reasonable doubt and there is no uncertainty,
anomality or ambiguity in the present case concerning the facts, statements, witnesses,
medical examination and evidences produced by the prosecution. The conscience of
the court can never be bound by any rule. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit
of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy
social defence.148 Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.149
59. The totality of circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the
prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the
court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.150 It is submitted
that there is no false intention of the prosecutrix in framing the accused. Further, the
medical evidences nowhere prove that the accused has not committed rape on the
victim. The doubt of absence of injury is immaterial, as presence of injury is not a
sine qua non to constitute an offence of rape.
60. It is submitted that the old torn hymen does not signify that the sexual intercourse did
not happen recently. When vagina admitted two fingers, prima facie it appears that
intercourse happened. FIR was delayed because the victim was scared as she was
threatened by the accused with death. Further, both scientific and non-scientific
evidences prove that the victim was below the age of 18.
61. In Moti Chand v State of Rajasthan,151 the Rajasthan High Court after analysing
various judgements of the past152 concluded that corroboration of the testimony of
prosecutrix in rape cases is not required as a rule of law. Further, there is no need of
supportive evidence if the victim is credible and confident.153

148
See 3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code under ‘BENEFIT OF DOUBT AND ACQUITTAL’(12th edition 2018).
149
Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 209, 1990 Cr LJ 562; State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal
AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994 Cr LJ 2104; State of Rajasthan v Gaharoo 2001 Cr LJ 3672 (Raj)
150
State of Maharashtra v Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, 1990 Cr LJ 889 (SC).
151
Moti Chand v State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 1916 (Raj).
152
Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54, 1952 Cr LJ 547 (SC); Ram Murti v State of
Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1020, 1970 Cr LJ 991 (SC); Gurcharan Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1972 SC 2661,
1973 Cr LJ 179 (SC); RK Aggarwal v State of Orissa AIR 1976 SC 1774, 1976 Cr LJ 1376 (SC); Rajique v
State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 559, 1980 Cr LJ 1344 (SC); Sheikh Zakir v State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC
911, 1983 Cr LJ 1285 (SC)
153
Wahid Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 Cr LJ 517, p 520 (SC), AIR 2010 SC 1, (2010) 2 SCC 9, 2009

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

32
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual
intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated
unless the situation is imaginary.154 But in present case the situation is not built up,
there are witnesses who have seen the accused running. To insist on corroboration
except in the rarest of rare case is to equate a woman who is a victim of lust of
another, with an accomplice to a crime, and thereby insult womanhood.155
62. In Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain’s case156 & Lekh Raj’s case,157 it was held
that “Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not
stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity.” In every
rape case, the prosecutrix should be treated as an injured witness.158
63. In Rammi alias Rameshwar’s159 case it was stated that different persons react
differently on seeing any violence and their behaviour and conduct would, therefore,
be different. In present case, the accused threatened the victim to death, and further on
the night of 14th August 2019, she was suddenly held from behind leaving her in a
state of shock, disabling her reflexes.

(14) Scale 220.

154
Radhu v State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 Cr LJ 4704, p 4705 (SC), 2007 (11) Scale 96 [LNIND 2007 SC
1059], 2007 (6) Scale 196.
155
See 3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code under ‘Prosecutrix Testimony—Whether Requires
Corroboration’(12th edition 2018).
156
State of Maharashtra v Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, 1990 Cr LJ 889 (SC).
157
State of Himachal Pradesh v Lekh Raj v State of Maharashtra and Anor 2000 Cr LJ 44 (SC).
158
Satendra Kumar Kushwaha v State of Bihar 2003 Cr LJ 392 (Pat).
159
Rammi alias Rameshwar v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 3544 [LNIND 1999 SC 850], 1999 Cr LJ
4561 (SC).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

33
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021
64. It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of
prosecutrix doesn’t have material doubts. All doubts are circumstantial and these
doubts are justified by the counsel in the arguments before the Hon’ble court. The
Hon’ble Court should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed
by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix, which may be of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case.160 The Hon’ble Court is open to base its conviction solely on the
evidence of prosecutrix, if credence of evidence is justified,161and if the prosecutrix
does not have strong motive to falsely implicate the accused.162 Hence it is pleaded
not to entertain the case of the accused on the grounds of benefit of doubt.

160
See 3 R.A. Nelson, Indian Penal Code under ‘Prosecutrix Testimony—Whether Requires
Corroboration’(12th edition 2018).
161
Motiram Krishnmao v State of Madhya Pradesh 1955 Cr LJ 819, AIR 1955 Nag 121, 124; Kishanlal v State
of Haryana (1980) 3 SCC 159, AIR 1980 SC 1252; Narayana Dutta v State 1980 Cr LJ 264, p 265 (Cal) (DB);
Gurdial Singh v State of Punjab 1980 Chand LR 108, p 111-12; Satendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha v State of
Bihar 2003 Cr LJ 392 (Pat).
162
Jaganu Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh 2013 (2) Crimes 424 (Chh).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

34
 1st SHRI R. K. PANDEY MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf of the Respondents humbly pray before this
Hon’ble Court:

1. To Hold that the current petition is not maintainable under the authority of the Supreme
Court, vide. Article 32 r/w Article 134 & 136 of the Indian Constitution.
2. To Uphold that the appellant has committed the offences of Rape (S. 376) and
Criminal Intimidation (S. 506) under IPC.
3. To Declare that the appellant stands convicted.
Or pass any other relief, order or writ that the court may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity and good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships
the Respondents shall as duty bound ever pray.

Sd/-

Counsels for Respondents.

-30/07/2021

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

35