MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

NAME-ASMITA KISANRAO DIVEKAR

ROLL NO-23

Before

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Delhi

Appeal Filed Under

Article 132 &
134 of
The Constitution of India, 1950

Criminal Appeal No. / 2016

[Under Section 326A r/w Section 34, Section 354D, Section 366 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860]

[Under Section 357A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]

In the Matter of

The state ……………………………………………………..Appellant

Vs.

Mr. Ramesh………………………………………………...Respondent

Memorial on Behalf of the Appellant

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honorable Chief Justice of India &

Other Companion Judges of

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

The Honorable Supreme Court of India

Table of Contents

Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………
………………………………...3

Index of
authorities………………………………………………………………………
……………….….4

Statement of
jurisdiction……………………………………………………………………
……….…….5

Statements
of
facts………………………………………………………………………………
…….…….6

Issues raised
………………………………………………………………………………………
…….……..8

Summary of
arguments………………………………………………………………………
….…………9

Arguments
advanced………………………………………………………………………
…….………..11

Prayer……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………….

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Abbreviations

 Hon’ble:- Honorable
 Sec:- Section
 IPC:- Indian Procedure Code
 Rs.:- Indian rupees[(INR) Indian currency]
 Vs.:- Versus
 r/w:- read with.
 CrPC:- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 A.I.R:- All India Report
 SC:- Supreme Court
 SCC:- Supreme Court Cases
 e.g. :- Exempli Gratia (For Example)
 Art. :- Article
 Vol. :- Volume
 Edn. :- Edition

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Index of Authorities
Index of Laws:-
I. Acts/Statutes
Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Section 326A r/w Section 34

 Section 354D
 Section 366

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Section 357A

The Constitution of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 4|Page

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Evidence Act

II. Books
1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code 33rd Edition Reprint 2012
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, A commentary on The Indian Penal
Code, 1860 26th edition.
3. Criminal Procedure- R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure by Dr.
C.N.
Chandrasekharan Pilai.
4. Text book on Indian Penal Code by Krishna Deo Gaur, Fourth Edition.

BI. Internet Sources

1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.indiankanoon.com
3. http://www.indlawinfo.org/
4. http://www.jstor.org.
5. http://www.judis.nic.in
6. http://www.lawsofindia.org
7. http://www.manupatra.com
8. http://www.scconline.com
IV. Case Laws and Citations

1. R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9

2. Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar,[ para. 18]

3. Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160)

4. Ram Chander Mandal Vs.State, 1997IAD(Delhi)1, 1996(39)DRJ363

5. State of Karnataka v Joseph Rodrigues, , Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1239/2004

6. Mahesh v. State of M.P, MANU/SC/0246/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 80

7. Jashubha Bharatsinha v state of Gujarat, 7MANU/SC/1561/1994 : (1994) SCC 353

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

8. Ravji v. state of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175

9. Laxmi Vs. Union Of India & others 2013 (9)

10. Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213,

11. Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ 2553.

12. Rajinder v state of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 721.

13. (1953-54) 6 SauLR 329(333)(DB).

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Statement of Jurisdiction

The appellant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 132 and Article
134 of The Constitution of India, 1950. The case is listed for arguments before the
Division
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Article 132 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

“Article 132: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain
cases
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High
Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court
certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the

interpretation of this Constitution

(2) Omitted
Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the
ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the
purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which,
if decided in favor of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case”

Article 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

Article 134: Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters

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

(c) Certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided
that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that
behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or
require
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.

Statement of Facts

1. Reema, 18, a bright and ambitious student of 12th standard belonging to a lower middle class
family used to give tuitions to support her family.

2. Ramesh, accused number 1 (respondent) is a math teacher at Reema's school.

3. On Reema's 18th birthday Ramesh organized a birthday party for her at his house and gifted
her an expensive watch.

4. On 14th February 2015, Ramesh proposed marriage to Reema, Reema asked him to speak to
her parents about the proposal, Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal – which was
rejected by them. Ramesh was warned by Reema's parents to stay away from their daughter.
Reema's parents also warned Reema and threatened to discontinue her studies. Thereafter Reema
maintained her distance from Ramesh and made her intentions to adhere to her parents' orders
strictly.
5. Despite resistance, Ramesh continued to contact Reema personally, through phone and
internet, as well as follow her to her tuition class.

6. Reema reported Ramesh's behavior to her parents, they rebuked Ramesh for his acts despite
their warning and disinterest. Reema's parents beat Ramesh and ordered him to leave.

7. Ramesh enraged with Reema's parents decision and actions went to Mahesh, 45, and narrated
the entire sequence of events. Mahesh was Ramesh's confidante and a fatherly figure.

8. Mahesh suggested that Ramesh should force Reema to marry him without informing
her parents, he further suggested that Ramesh should carry a bottle of acid to threaten Reema
with in case she resists the marriage.
9. After initial hesitation, Ramesh agrees to do as Mahesh suggested.
10. On 23rd March 2013 as planned Ramesh and Mahesh found Reema on a lonely road and
ordered her to accompany them to the temple so that Ramesh can marry her. Reema refused, on
her refusal, Mahesh threatened her with the bottle of acid while Ramesh started dragging her into
the car. Reema shouted in resistance – on her shouting, Mahesh opened the bottle of acid and
threw it on her face.
11. Ramesh and Mahesh both fled the scene of crime.
12. Reema was left behind in immense pain.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

13. Reema was taken to the hospital by a passerby, where she underwent surgeries and
treatment for grievous injuries and burns.

14. Reema's statement was recorded and a FIR was lodged against both the accused under
Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860.

15. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police
from his home and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime, were seized from his possession.
16. Ramesh was put to trial before the sessions court where he pleaded not guilty, Sessions Court
convicted Ramesh under Sec. 326A r/w Sec. 34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to 10 years
of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation of Rupees two lacs to Reema.
He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC. Both
the sentences were to run concurrently.
17. Ramesh filed an appeal in the High Court seeking acquittal, state filed an appeal seeking
life imprisonment and enhanced compensation.
18. The High Court adjudicated in Ramesh's favor, the court acquitted him from the charges under
Sec.326A r/w Sec. 34, IPC, and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of the State, being

bereft of any substance. It held that under the circumstances of the case the Sessions Court
had wrongly held the accused liable under Sec. 326A, IPC, by invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860
as no common intention to commit the offense of acid attack under Sec.326A could be
proved. The High Court also held that the offense of stalking under Sec. 354D was not made
out against the accused. The High Court, however, recommended the State Legal Services
Authority to decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State
Government to the victim as per Sec. 357A, CrPC within one month.

19. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the State filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that
common intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to the use of bottle of acid in
their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention.

20. The State appealed for considering the offense as heinous and to award life imprisonment
under Sec 326Ar/w Sec.34 IPC and Section 354D IPC and also to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Sessions Court, to Rupees three lac fifty thousand, to be paid by the accused
to the victim under Sec. 326A, IPC, 1860, in addition to the compensation to be paid by the
State Government under Sec 357A CrPC. The State also sought permission for addition of
charge under Sec 366 IPC.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Statement of Issues

The Appellant respectfully asks the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
following questions:
1. Whether common intention was present when Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to use acid.

Whether acid thrown on Reema was in furtherance of the common intention.

2. Whether the actions of Ramesh were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under
Sec 326Ar/w Sec.34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC.

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to the victim under Sec
326A IPC in addition to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec
357A CrPC should be enhanced.
4. Whether permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Summary of Arguments

1. Common intention was present when Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to use acid

and acid thrown on Reema was in furtherance of the common intention.

It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Ramesh and

Mahesh from the moment Ramesh agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Reema to

marry him. As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common

intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him

alone. The hon’ble HC fails to take notice of this common intention and the actions by Ramesh

which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.

2. Ramesh’s actions were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w
Sec 34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC.
It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh caused
permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to grievous hurt by
throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Ramesh and Mahesh are punishable by
life imprisonment. It is also submitted that Ramesh may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known
fact that Ramesh had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her resistance,
disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of Ramesh amount to stalking.

3. Compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to the victim under Sec 326A IPC
in addition to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC
should be enhanced.
It is humbly submitted to this court that the compensation awarded to Reema by the Sessions Court
should be enhanced as per Sec 326A – the compensation should be sufficient to support the medical
treatment of the victim, however the given compensation of two lacs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient as
the expenditure occurred is over six and a half lacs (6,50,000/-) and further treatment needs
to be done which includes fifteen more surgeries. The court is requested to enhance the compensation
to three lacs and fifty thousand (3,50,000/-) along with the compensation which the state needs to pay
as per Sec 357A CrPC.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

4. Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC.

It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge under Sec 366

IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel her

marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and actions clearly had the intention to forcefully marry

Reema against her will with coercion.

 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Arguments Advanced
ISSUE 1
Whether the High court has failed to take notice of the fact that the common intention was
present as Ramesh & Mahesh agreed to use the bottle of acids in their plan of abduction and
acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention.
1. It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Ramesh and Mahesh from

the moment Ramesh agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Reema to marry him. As per Sec 34

IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention makes each person liable for

that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The hon’ble HC fails to take notice of this

common intention and the actions by Ramesh which were clearly in furtherance of this common intention.

2. Intention is defined in R. v Mohan 1 as "the decision to bring about a prohibited

consequence.”.

Intention A range of words represents shades of intention in criminal laws around the world. The
mental element, or mens rea, of murder, for example, is traditionally expressed as malice
aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "willfully" vary between pure
intention and recklessness depending on the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed and the
seriousness of the offense.

3. The 4 essential elements of an offense are:

a. Mens Rea (Intention): Mens rea refers to the crime's mental elements of the
defendant's intent. This is a necessary element—that is, the criminal act must be voluntary
or purposeful. Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the defendant's state of mind at
the time of the offense, sometimes called the guilty mind. It stems from the ancient maxim of
obscure origin, "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas" that is translated as "the act is not
guilty unless the mind is guilty."

b. Actus Rea (Conduct): The actions or the conduct or the execution of mala fide intentions is Actus
Rea. Posession.

c. Concurrence: In general, mens rea and actus reus must occur at the same time—that is, the
criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way activate the act.
1
R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

d. Cause: Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result". That is to say that
causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury.

4. In the case in hand, all four elements of crime are present without doubt, in
furtherance of that attention must be drawn to the Common Intention aspect of this case –
the test of intention for those who administer the criminal justice system is that ,
when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible
consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple
expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action.
So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to
some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. In
the given case, when Mahesh suggested to Ramesh the use of Acid in order to intimate, threaten
and forcefully marry Reema – Ramesh was fully aware of all the possible and probably
consequences of using acid – of which one happened to be causing grievous hurt or even death of
Reema. Knowing the possible and probably consequences Ramesh agreed to Mahesh's plan – this
satisfied the test of intention, which was clearly mala fide and criminal in this case.

5. The fact that Ramesh did not resist Mahesh's plan as well as stood as a mute witness
to Mahesh's action of throwing acid on Reema clearly show the intention was common
and equally mala fide. It can be said with certainty that Ramesh had the intention to inflict bodily
harm on the victim otherwise Ramesh would have disagreed of use to bottle of acid and would
have not accompanied Mahesh to abduct Reema with the use of bottle containing acid. Since the
conduct of the accused Ramesh whose presence at the scene of the occurrence stands proven
beyond doubt, at the time when Mahesh was throwing acid gives sufficient proof that
both shared common intention and further Ramesh simply watched to the accused Mahesh
throwing acid on Reema neither tried to intervene or save nor prevented the accused Mahesh
from doing it so it is clearly established that the accused Ramesh had intended to
cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim.

6. However keeping in mind the facts that Reema had turned down Ramesh’s marriage proposal and
further Ramesh had accompanied Mahesh who was carrying the bottle of acid to the scene of incident, it
can be said with certainty that the accused Ramesh had the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim
otherwise accused Ramesh would have disagreed of use to bottle of acid and would have not
accompanied the accused Mahesh to abduct Reema with the use of acid. Since the conduct of
the accused Ramesh whose presence at the scene of the incident stands proved beyond doubt, at
the time when Mahesh was throwing acid gives sufficient indication that both shared common
intention and further Ramesh simply watched Mahesh using acid to cause hurt to Reema - he neither tried
to intervene or save Reema, neither did he stop Mahesh from doing it so it is clearly established that the
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

accused Ramesh had the intention to cause injury, disfigurements and disabilities of the victim. The
silence on the part of Ramesh and failure to intervene goes to show that Ramesh developed common
intention with the accused Mahesh of throwing the bottle containing acid.2

7. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. Acid violence is a premeditated act of
violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the attack by first obtaining the acid, carrying
it on him and then stalking the victim before executing the act supporting this act done to be
premeditated the Hon'ble SC in Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra,3 has held:-
"No pre mediation or previous meeting of mind is necessary for the applicability of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. The existence of common intention can be inferred from the attending circumstances of
the case and the conduct of the parties. No direct evidence of common intention is necessary. For the
purposes of common intention even the participation in the commission of the offence need not be
proved in all cases. The common intention can develop even during the course of an occurrence.”

8. These facts clearly establish that common intention on the part of both the accused and section 34. IPC
is rightly pressed into service. The togetherness of the two accused at the time at the time of the incident
and soon after the incident clearly establishes their common intention to commit the crime. A question
arises that if there was no common intention why did not Ramesh tried to prevent or intervene and why
did he run away along with Mahesh leaving Reema in immense pain? The only answer to this question is
that there was a common intention (which happens to be essential element 1 of a crime as stated in
th
paragraph 3) and their actions on March 24 were in furtherance of that common intention -
Completing the essential element 2, 3, 4 for a crime as stated in paragraph 3 of both the accused in the
crime. Thus the appellant finds no merit in the argument that section 34, IPC cannot be invoked in the
facts of the present case so as to convict the appellant as per this case Ram Chander Mandal V. State.4

9. From the above circumstances it is crystal clear that they had common intention to commit such heinous
crime. Yes, the act of throwing the acid was clearly a manifestation of the plan and carrying the acid was an
essential and important action plan.

2
Bengai Mandal vs. State of Bihar [para. 18]
3
2000 Cri LJ 380: (AIR 2000 SC 160)
4
1997IAD(Delhi)1, 1996(39)DRJ363
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

ISSUE 2

Ramesh’s actions were fit for awarding of life imprisonment under Sec 326A r/w Sec
34 IPC and Sec 354D IPC.

A. It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh
caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to
grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Ramesh and Mahesh are
punishable by life imprisonment. It is also submitted that Ramesh may be convicted under
Sec 354D as it is a known fact that Ramesh had been following her, contacting her on phone
and internet despite her resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of
Ramesh amount to stalking.

B. Acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by which the perpetrator of the crime seeks to
inflict severe physical and mental suffering on his victim. This kind of violence is
often motivated by deep-seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against an innocent
woman. Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. The act of using bottle of acid
was a premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the
attack by first obtaining the acid, then carrying it on him and then stalking the victim before
executing the act.
C. As elaborated upon in Argument 1, paragraph 4 – Ramesh did not do anything to prevent
Mahesh from throwing the acid, he stood there watching it while Reema suffered.
Further so – he was the one who drove Mahesh to Reema, abducted Reema, dragged her
and also fled along with Mahesh. The fact that Ramesh had no sense of remorse or
resentment – clearly shows his mala fide intentions and equal participation in throwing of
acid on Reema.
D. As per section 34 IPC “ each of such persons is liable for that act in same manner as if it
were by him alone”, this section clearly holds Ramesh liable for the act of throwing acid
on Reema as argued in argument 1 paragraph 1-7 there was clear common
intention between Mahesh and Ramesh, which makes Ramesh equally liable.

E. Sec 326 IPC deals with offenses in which grievous hurt is caused voluntarily by
dangerous weapons or means, in the given cases sub section A will apply as that specifies
Acid as the means for causing damage, dis-figuration or disability. Sec 326A states that :
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

'326A. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or

disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing

acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of

causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may

extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to

meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.’

F. The damage caused to Reema has been proven beyond doubt to be of grievous nature which
has ruined her life, career and future for her and her family. Reema has had to undergo 6
surgeries and 10-15 more surgeries will need to be conducted, Reema has lost vision in one
eye, Reema has permanent scars on the skin of her hands and face. Reema has suffered
physically, emotionally and mentally beyond repair and the suffering can is beyond measure.
G. In the given case, Ramesh clearly caused the most severe degree of damage possible and
deserves the maximum punishment in order to set precedent which will deter others from
abusing and ruing lives of women.
th
H. Further, Ramesh's action prior to the attack on Reema on March 24 amount to
conviction under sec 354D IPC, which states that -
'354D. (1) Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster
personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person,
or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of
electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of
violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental
peace of such person, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that the course of conduct will not amount to stalking if the person who pursued it
shows––
(i) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the person accused
of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by
the state; or
(ii) That it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed
by any person under any law; or
(iii) That in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was
reasonable.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Whoever commits the offense of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine.’

I. Here in this case Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage and Reema however told him to speak
to her parents. When Ramesh approached Reema’s parents with the proposal of marriage, they
rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. Thereafter, Reema started avoiding
Ramesh and made Ramesh clear that she won’t go against her parents’ wishes. Despite such
disinterest shown by Reema and warning by her parents Ramesh started following Reema
to her tuition classes and even contacted her personally on the phone and through
internet. Here Ramesh tried to foster personal interaction with Reema against her will. Ramesh's
actions clearly fulfils the conditions of offence Stalking under Section 354D IPC. The appellant
submits this court to convict Ramesh under S354D IPC and give maximum punishment of three
years to Ramesh.

J. In similar cases where a person threw acid on someone causing great amount of damage
and despair, the courts have confirmed as well as awarded life in prison to the accused – one such
case is of State of Karnataka v. Joseph Rodrigues 5
where the Karnataka HC confirmed that such
ghastly attacks are punishable by life in prison.

K. In Mahesh v. State of M.P 6

Reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering death
sentence observed thus: It will be a mockery of Justice to permit the accused the escape the extreme
penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for
the accused would be to render the justice system of this country suspect. The common man will lose
faith in Courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than
the reformative jargon. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and
society could not long endure such serious threats. The duty of every Court to award
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it urns
executed or committed etc. (see Sevak Perumal v. State of T.N.). The criminal law adheres in
general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of
each kind of criminal conduct.

5
State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station Vs. Respondent: Joseph Rodrigues S/o V.Z. Rodrigues, Criminal Appeal Nos.
1065, 1066 and 1239/2004
6
MANU/SC/0246/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 80
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

L. In Jashubha Bharatsinha v. state of Gujarat 7

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: The Courts
are required to answer new challenges and mold the sentencing system to meet these challenges.
The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the
avowed defect of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would
operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the
society.

M. In the case of Ravji v. state of Rajasthan 8 it is held that it is the nature and gravity of the
crime and not the criminal, which art germane for consideration of
appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in if duty if
appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only
against the individual but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim
belong.

ISSUE 3

Compensation awarded by the Sessions Court to the victim under Sec 326A IPC in addition
to compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC should
be enhanced.

1. It is humbly submitted to this court that the compensation awarded to Reema by the
Sessions Court should be enhanced as per Sec 326A – the compensation should be
sufficient to support the medical treatment of the victim, however the given compensation
of two lakhs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient as the expenditure occurred is over six lakhs
(6,50,000/-) and further treatment needs to be done which includes fifteen more surgeries.
The court is requested to enhance the compensation to three lakhs and fifty thousand
(3,50,000/-) along with the compensation which the state needs to pay as per Sec 357A
CrPC.
2. As argued in argument 2 – it is clear that Ramesh was guilty of causing grievous hurt by
throwing acid on Reema – the damage is grave and beyond full repair. Physical,
emotional and mental damage aside – there is a lot of monetary damage which Reema
and her family have suffered because of this attack. Reema has already undergone 6
surgeries which have cost the family over six and a half lakhs Rupees (6,50,000/-), the

7
MANU/SC/1561/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 353
8
MANU/SC/0215/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 175
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

doctors have stated that there will be need for 10-15 more surgeries and further ongoing
treatment. Reema has also lost her left eye and has permanent scars on her hands and
face. Reema's father has lost his job because of extended leave for Reema's treatment.
Reema's father also has 2 younger daughters to support. The damage and distress caused
to Reema and her family is beyond measure and repair.

3. Although no amount of compensation will bring Reema's life back to as it was before the
attack, however it is her right under Sec 326A to get compensation from Ramesh to meet her
medical expenditure. The appellant submits to this hon'ble court to order the respondent to
three and a half lakhs Rupees (3,50,000/-) as compensation to Reema, immediately for her
medical treatment.

4. The appellant also submits to this hon'ble court to order the state authorities to pay the
compensation to Reema which she is entitled to under S357A (2) CrPC – same was
ordered by the HC. Sec 357A (2) CrPC states that –

Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or
the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be
awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).'

5. As stated in the judgment by this hon'ble court by hon'ble Justice RM Lodha in the case, Laxmi Vs.
Union Of India & others9 That the current compensation package of all states and UTs —
ranging between Rs 5,000 and Rs 1.5 lakh — is inadequate to meet costs of treatment and
rehabilitation. The judgment also reiterated that Rs. 1 lakh of the compensation must be paid
by the authorities within 15 days of the attack being reported. The judgment says –

“It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of
plastic surgeries and other corrective treatment. With regard to this, the solicitor
general suggested that the compensation amount to be paid by states to acid attack
victims must be enhanced to at least Rs 3 lakh,” “The balance of Rs 2 lakh shall be paid
by the state or Union Territory concerned as expeditiously as possible and
positively within two months of the incident.”

6. Keeping this hon'ble court's judgment as reference – apparent submits that the court may order the
state government to pay compensation to Reema immediately in addition to the
compensation to be paid by Ramesh under sec 326A IPC

ISSUE 4

Permission should be given to add the charge under Sec 366 IPC

9
Laxmi Vs. Union Of India &
others
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

1. It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge
under Sec 366 IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting
or inducing women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and
actions clearly had the intention to forcefully marry Reema against her will with
coercion.

2. This hon’ble Court has the power to add or alter any charge at any time before
judgment is pronounced under sec 216 CrPC.

Section 366 IPC states

that:

‘ Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.-- Whoever

kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely
that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of
criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of
compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing
that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall
also be punishable as aforesaid.’

3. In the given case, it is proven beyond doubt that Ramesh wanted to abduct Reema
and
marry her forcefully. On 24th March Ramesh along with Mahesh executed this plan and
found Reema alone and attempted an abduction. This clearly proves that the intention to abduct
was very much present. This incident will come under the ambit of Sec 366 as a case of
abduction as Reema happened to be eighteen years, whereas kidnapping applies to only minors.

4. This hon’ble court held in the case of Khalil-Ur-Rahman and Hazarika v State of Assam that
once the necessary intention of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether
or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not in the event the
woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.10

10
Khalil-Ur-Rahman, (1933) 11Rang. 213, Moniram Hazarika v State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120; 2004 Cr LJ
2553.
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

5. The given situation is strikingly similar to cases cited - though accused did not
successfully abducted Reema and compel her to marry against her wishes but accused must be
charged under Sec 366 IPC as the intention was clear. The intention of the accused is the basis and
the graveness of an offence under this section. The violation, the intention and the conduct of the
accused determine the offence. The only bear upon the intent which the accused kidnapped or
abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determining the
case. Intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and the
subsequent conduct of the accused after abduction has taken place.

6. In order to constitute offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off illegally by force or
deception that is to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to
another as judged in the case of Rajinder v state of Maharashtra. 11

7. To constitute the offence under section 366, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place that such
inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that
complainant will be compelled to marry.12

8. Knowledge on the part of the accused at the time of abduction or kidnapping that the woman
would be compelled to marry against her will is sufficient to constitute an offence under
this section. 13

9. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to add a new charge
under Sec 366 IPC in the trial of this case. As Ramesh had an intention and
knowledge along with Mahesh to abduct Reema and forcefully take her to the temple for
marrying her without the information to her parents.

10. This clearly shows that Ramesh used force to compel her to accompany him to the temple
where he wanted to marry her. This proves beyond doubt that Ramesh has committed the
offence under Sec 366 IPC, the same has been overlooked by the competent authority which
framed the initial charges as well as the hon’ble Sessions Court and hon’ble HC.

11
Rajinder v state of Maharashtra
12
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes, A commentary on The Indian Penal Code, 1860 26th edition, Pg 2020
13
(1953-54) 6 SauLR 329(333)(DB).
 MODERN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

Prayer

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, argument advanced, reasons given and Authorities
cited, this hon’ble court may be pleased to:

 Pronounce Ramesh as guilty under Sec 326 r/w Sec 34 and Sec 354D IPC and
sentence him to life imprisonment.

 Enhance the compensation to be paid by the accused under Sec 326A IPC to the
victim to Rupees three lakh fifty thousand along with the compensation to be paid
by the State Government under Sec 357A CrPC.
 To grant permission to add charge under Sec 366 IPC.

 To pass any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light
of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this Act of kindness, the respondent shall forever humbly pray.
All of which is respectfully submitted.