Itm Moot Court Petitioner

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT TC-AJMC 006R
ARUN JAITLEY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONA
CRIMINAL APPLELLATE JURISDICTION
In the matter of,

Section66C and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
Sections354A, 354C, and 509 of THE INDONAN PENAL CODE, 1860
CRIMINAL APPLELLATE JURISDICTION NO. / 2023
(UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDONA)
IN THE MATTER OF :
RAVI …….APPELLANT
VS.
STATE OF MAHA PRADESH …….RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONA
Page no. 1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREBIATIONS EXPANSIONS
COI CONSTITUTION OF
INDONA
ORS. OTHERS
SC SUPREMECOURT
SCC SUPREMECOURT CASES
V. VERSUS
HC HIGHCOURT
PARA PARAGRAPH
H.R. HUMAN RIGHTS
U/S UNDER SECTION
U/A UNDER ARTICLE
HON’BLE HONORABLE
M.H. MAHARASHTRA
H.P. HIMACHAL PRADESH
ART. ARTICLE
CONST. CONSTITUTION
IPC INDONA PENAL CODE
CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
T.N. TAMIL NADU
Page no.2
S.L.P SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
C.P CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
R.I. RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
& AND
REV. REVIEW
S. SECTION
SUPP. SUPPLEMENTARY
SS. SECTIONS
UOI UNION OFI NDONA
LTD. LIMITED
U.P. UTTAR PRADESH
M.P. MAHA PRADESH
KER. KERALA
ELT ELECTRIONIC
ANR. ANOTHER
JJ JUVENILE JUSTICE
E.A. EVIDENCE ACT
L.P. LEGAL PROCEEDING
Page no.3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION.......................................................................................................2
INDEX OF AUTHORITY........................................................................................................ 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................. 10
STATEMENTS OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 11
ISSUE PRESENTED...................................................................................................................... 13
SUMMARY OF PLEADING ........................................................................................................ 14
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS.................................................................................................... 16
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER MR. RAVI CAN BE HELD LAIBLE FOR THE CYBER BULLYING AND
HARASSMENT ENDURED BY X?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
1.1 Opinions of experts.
1.2 Opinion for Electronic evidence (Section 45A).
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR HIM,
AND SHOULD HE BE REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS?
…...........................................................................................................................24
2.1 Preliminary Assessment of the Capability Conducted by Juvenile Justice Board.
2.2 important landmark judgement.
Page no.4
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED AND
LEGITIMATE?
…............................................................................................................................ ..29
3.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
3.2 DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY.
ISSUE 4:
WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN BRACHED

IN THE INVESTIGATION AS HIS SYSTEM WAS LOOKED IN TO WITHOUT HIS
PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE? WHETER THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND?
…............................................................................................................................ ....
4.1 PROVISION IN CONSTITUTION OF INDONA.
4.2 International Concepts of Privacy.

PRAYER…..............................................................................................................
34
Page no.5
INDEX OFAUTHORITY
* STATUTESREFERRED:
(1) CONSTITUTION OF INDONA,1950
(2) INDONA PENALCODE,1860
(3) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973
(4) THE LAW OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
(5) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
(6) JUVINILE JUSTICE ( CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
* BOOKSREFERRED:
(1) J.N. pandey constitution of Indona, 2022edition.
(2) Durga Das Basu Shorter Constitution of India BY Justice R Banumathi Vol.1-2, 16th Edition,
LexisNexis Publication
(3) Bare act of constitution of Indona, 2022edition.
(4) Constitution of indona by V.N. Shukla, 13 th edition.
(5) Commentry on IPC by Rantanlal & Dheerajlal.
(6) S.N.MISRA, the code of criminal procedure,(25edition.2022)
(7) D.N. SEN, The code on criminal procedure (premier publishing company ,Allahabad,2021)
(8) Law of evidence by K.A. pandey., 18 th edition.
(8) Principles of the law of evidence, by dr. avtar singh 24 th edition.
(9) Bare act on law of evidence 1872, latest edition.
(10) Commentary on the information technology act by J.N. BAROWALIA.

(11) Bare act on information technology act, latest edition.
(12) Bare act on Juvenile justice act, 2015 (2023 edition) 6
(13) Commentary on the law of evidence by ratanlal and dhirajlal (27 th edition).
(14) Law of evidence by batuk lal (20 th edition)
Page no. 6
* WEBSITESREFERRED:
• https://manupatra.com
• https://www.scribd.com
• https://www.scconline.com
• https://blog.ipleaderes.in
• https://ww.studyiq.com
• www.indiatoday.com
• https://www.legalserviceindia.com
• https://indiankanoon.org
Page no. 7
LIST OF CASES
S.NO. CASES CITATIONS

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JAI LAL AIR 1999
& ORS
2. State of Maharashtra vs. Dammu s/o Gopinath 10 MARCH, 1999 SC 129

Shinde & Ors.
3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujrat AIR 2006

& Ors.
4. Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 (5) SCC 518
5. State of UP. Vs Shanke, AIR 1981 SC 897
6. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs. Regency Hospital ltd. AIR 2010 SC 806
7. Gopinath Ghosh v State of West Bengal. 1984 AIR SCR (1) 803
8. Salil Bali v. Union of Indona & anr. (2013) 7 SCC 705
(2017) 6 SCC 1
9. Muktesh & ors v. State of Delhi.
10. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, Thr. Member (2014) SLP NO.1953
Juvenile justice board.
R. v. C.D [2005]
11.
Mukesh & ANR V. state of NCT delhi & ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
12.
Shilpa Mittal vs Union of Indona & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 405
13.
Page no. 8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
14. Kedarnath Kashyap vs. State Of Chhattisgarh. AIR (2018)
15. Maneka Gandhi vs union of indona . AIR 1978 SC 597
16. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indona, (2017) 10 SCC 1
17. AIR 1997 SC 568

Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of Indona.
18. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., 1994 SCC (6) 632
19. (1978) AI 1025, SCR (3) 608

Nandidni Satpathy v. P. L. Dani. (1978) AI 1025, SCR
(3) 608
20. selvi & ors. V. state of Karnataka. AIR (2010) SC 1974
21. In Rayala M. Bhuvneswari v. Nagaphomender AIR (2007)

Rayala.,
22. S. Rengarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram Supreme Court (1989) SCR (2) 204
Case
23. Mahabhir prasan Singh Vs M/s Jacks Aviation Private Ltd AIR 1998
PAGE NO. 9
Statement of jurisdiction
The Appellant approached Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 134 of the constitution which pronounce
as:
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from judgement final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of Indona 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; or
(c.) 1[certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to 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.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court
in the territory of Indona subject to such condition and limitation as may be specified in such
law.
PAGE NO. 10
Statement of Facts
1. Initial Incident: That, on February 15, A 19 year old girl miss x received vile
and explicit images of through her social media accounts, leading her to
emotional distress. She inform about this incident to her parents. Her parents
filed an FIR on the same day, and Inspector Deepak Sharma initiated the
investigation.
2. Investigation: Thus, Inspector Sharma interviewed X, for gathering details
about the explicit messages, and began looking into potential leads regarding
the sender's identity. And in her statement x stated “that she felt violated and
humiliated. Those messages shattered her self-esteem.”
X’s and Ravi’s Relation:
Good friends till last October, Ms. X and Mr. Ravi were
considered as good friends by their schoolmates and teachers
alike. Having each other’s back, they both were thriving in
their education.
3. Witness Statements: Saaraa Patel<Witness 1>, on February 18 saara patel,
friend of X mentioned a past heated argument between X and ravi, which
hinted at a possible motive. Appellant firmly denied his involvement,
claiming his social media accounts were compromised in a phishing attack.
On which K. Kartik<Witness 2> endorsed for ravi. And k kartik in his
investigation mentioned that X and ravi were good friends till 6 month ago
but there friendship become worsening after the said offer. X got an offer
from of under graduate studies from standvard university situated abroad, ravi
had also applied to same institution but did not get offer.
4. Parental Concern: X’s father expressed concerns about their daughter's
well- being, noting that she had received unsolicited texts before the incident.
5. School Involvement: On 24thfebruaryInspector Sharma visited Hogwants
High School to gather information about X's and ravi relationship. Dr. Mehta
(Mental health Councilor), mentioned that X and ravi had booked counseling
sessions after their quarrel, ravi was calm and decided to apply to other place
for study abroad. Mr. ravi according to dr. Mehta was very mature for his age.
He also added that ms. X was very bitter about the quarrel.
PAGE NO. 11
6. Hacking and Privacy Breach: on 25th February, Ravi 's private details were
obtained without his consent, and a tech expert, Anni, identified hacking
attempts on ravi's social media accounts She explains, "It appears that Ravi's
accounts were compromised through a phishing attack. The hacker gained
access to his personal information, allowing them to send those messages”.
AI-generated content was used to create malicious images, which then be
distributed through appellants account.
7. Legal Proceedings: The case was submitted to the local prosecutor's office,
recommending further legal action. However, ravi claimed that his privacy
was breached when his system was accessed for evidence.
8. Juvenile or Adult Status: That, Appellant, aged 17 years, which raises a
question of whether he should be treated as a juvenile or an adult in the legal
proceedings. The lower courts and the high court of maha Pradesh denied
treating him as a juvenile, considering his understanding of the consequences.
9. Subsequent Appeals: The Appellant filled petition to the Supreme Court of
Indona after the Subordinate and High Courts convicted Appellant under
sections 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 of the IPC and section 66C & 66E IT Act,
imposing a 10-year sentence for rigorous imprisonment.
10. Implications: The case has drawn significant public and legal attention, as it
addresses issues related to cyberbullying, juvenile justice, and digital privacy.
It has the potential to set precedents for future cases.
PAGE NO. 12
ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE 1:
1. WHETHER MR. RAVI CAN BE HELD LAIBLE FOR THE CYBER
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY X?
ISSUE 2:
2. WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

FOR HIM, AND SHOULD HE BE REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN
ADULT IN THESELEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
ISSUE 3:
3. WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED AND
LEGITIMATE?
ISSUE 4:
4. WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BTO PRIVACY HAS

BEEN BRACHED IN THE INVESTIGATION AS HIS SYSTEM WAS
LOOKED IN TO WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE?
WHETER THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE
AFORESAID GROUND?
PAGE NO. 13
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER. RAVI CAN BE HELD LAIBLE FOR THE CYBER BULLYING AND
HARASSMENT ENDURED BY X?
That, Appellant is innocent and blameless in this matter should not be held liable for the
cyber bullying and harassment endured by X. Ravi under investigation vehemently
denies any involvement and claims his social media account as his account was hacked
on which tech expert Anni referred by investigation officer for analyzing the digital trail,
where after tracking she discovered IP address of a device which belonged to the
Appellant and identified hacking attempts on Appellant’s account also tech expert Anni
seconded on his witness.
As under S.45 of Indona evidence act which states makes expert’s opinion admissible,
“It lays down that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of science or
technical field, the opinion upon that point of a person especially skilled in such science
is relevant fact.” Accordance to the act t and hence according to section 45 of Indona
evidence act in this case expert opinion is relevant then here Ravi cannot held be liable
for the cyber bullying and harassment endured by X.
2. WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR

HIM, AND SHOULD HE BE REGARDED AS A JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN
THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
It is humbly submitted before Supreme Court of Indona that the Appellant should not be
regarded as an adult in the legal proceeding, the subordinate court and honorable high court
did gross injustice in this matter by rejecting Appellant to be treat as a juvenile but it clearly
unlawful.
As, Appellant is confined within judicial boundaries of law, but the question has raise
should a Person who still hasn’t completed his age of 18 years could be trialed as an Adult
offender while, Offences he being accused of levied him punitive punishment which a
guilty person may face. Such the question is vital one because it tethers us with justice
system which does not bound by judicial jurisprudence but revising and purulent the
fundamentals of human Rights which being violated through and through in this case.
PAGE NO. 14
Here all the laws are against to treat Appellant as a adult.
3. WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED AND

LEGITIMATE?
In this case, a 10-year prison sentence may be too harsh and may not be necessary to
achieve the goals of punishment and deterrence. In present case Appellant is
convicted for cyber bullying so, according to laws it is clear that this is not a heinous
offence so, the judgement given by hon’ble high court is erroneous which is going
destroy the life of Appellant, it is humbly request before hon’ble supreme court of
indona that the penalty imposed on totally unjustified and illegitimate. The high court
and subordinate court have erroneously charged us with 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 of
the IPC and section 66C and 66E of IT act, without any substantial evidence and the
high court has posed sanctions for heinous offence against Ravi. The state as the
charges framed against him are totally futile without any legal standing over it. The
appellant has been charges on a mere presumption without any direct evidence against
him.
4. WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BTO PRIVACY HAS BEEN

BRACHED IN THE INVESTIGATION AS HIS SYSTEM WAS LOOKED IN TO
WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE? WHETER THE
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND?
That, Ravi also claims that his privacy was invaded when the police gained
unauthorized access to his computer system to extract information from his social
media accounts. This could be seen as a violation of his rights and may impact the
admissibility of evidence against him. The court will need to weigh the evidence and
arguments from both sides to determine Ravi's liability. It has cleared by the help of the
fact of the case that the police access Appellant data without his knowledge and hence
investigation should be set aside on the aforesaid ground
PAGE NO. 15
AGRUMENT ADVANCED
ISSUE 1:
1. WHETHER MR. RAVI CAN BE HELD LAIBLE FOR THE CYBER
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ENDURED BY X?
It is the humble contention before Supreme Court of Indona that Ravi is blameless in this
matter and should not be held liable for the cyberbullying and harassment endured by X. In
the investigation state seeks the expertise of witness no. 3 tech expert Anni to know about
social media status of Ravi’s account and she mention in investigation that his account was
maliciously hacked. And hacker gained access to his personal information allowing them to
send those messages, honorable high court ignored this important factor and did gross
injustice with Appellant and gave erroneous judgement in this matter. Under 1section 45 of
law of Indona evidence it is mention that:
1.1 Opinions of experts:
When the Court has to form an belief upon a point of foreign law or of science or art,
or as to identity of handwriting the opinions upon that point of persons specially
skilled in such foreign law, science or art, are relevant facts.
In the landmark Judgement 2STATE OF HP VS JAI LAL & ORS, It lays down,
that when the court has to form an opinion related to science, the opinion upon that
point of a person especially skilled in such science or technology is a relevant fact.
The court cannot form a correct and right judgement without the help of a person
with special skills or experience in a particular subject.
When the court needs an opinion in a subject which requires specific assistance, the
court calls an expert, especially skilled person. The opinion given by a third person
is considered as pertinent facts if the person testifying is an expert. And in this present
case Anni has expertise in technology so, that, her expertise used by respondent.
1
THE LAW OF INDIAN EVIDENCE, 1872
2
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JAI LAL & ORS,(1999)
PAGE NO. 16
Opinion for Electronic evidence (Section 45A):

When a piece of information is transmitted or stored in a computer system or a device
and the court needs assistance or opinion for the same in any case; they refer an
examiner of electronic evidence. This examiner of electronic evidence is known as the
expert in such type of cases.
For this section (45 A), electronic evidence includes any information transmitted or
stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form for which the
opinion of electronic evidence examiner is required as per section 79A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
In landmark judgement 3State of Maharashtra vs. Dammu s/o Gopinath Shinde &
Ors. Hon’ble court held that without inspecting the expert as a witness in court, no
reliance can be placed on an opinion alone.
That, as per findings recorded by investigation officer, on 27 February, that in the view
of imprisonment imposed on appellant under section 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 of IPC
and section 66C & 66E of IT Act, by Hon’ble High Court of Maha Pradesh were
sanctions imposed on Appellant by arbitrary and falsely means and legal aspect was not
considered for passing the impugned order. Where, under section 45, 45A & 46 of
Evidence Act which speaks about expert’s opinion on which,
As well as under the light of “ 4Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujrat
& Ors. AIR 2006 where “Legislative measures to emphasize prohibition against
tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable
or unavoidable need of the day. Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation
of evidence or proof in proceedings before the Courts have to be seriously and sternly
dealt with. There should not be any undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the
accused. That would be unfair and unjust, as noted above, to the needs of the society.
3
State of Maharashtra vs. Dammu s/o Gopinath Shinde & Ors. 10 MARCH, 1999 SC 129
4
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujrat & Ors. AIR 2006
PAGE NO. 17
On the contrary, efforts should be to ensure fair trial where the accused of the case and
the prosecution both get a fair deal.
1.2 Illegitimacy of Punitive punishment for Cyberbullying
As per meaning of ‘Cyberbullying’ exhausted under Section 66C, 66E of IT ACT where
it defines it as “ It is an obstruct that confinement threats posed by other person in order
to cause harm shall be regarded as harassment, While communicating through a computer
device to as a resource to cheat personality by hiding once true identity. While there is no
sudden objectives which demonstrate that Accused involved in any form of cyberbullying
or harassment endured by X. Neither there is sign of any provocation which hints that
Accused indulged in cyberbullying.
Public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given as much importance
if not more, as the interest of the Individual accused. In this courts have a vital role to
play.” Where Hon’ble apex court also referred the case of 5Karnel Singh v. State of
M.P. (1995
(5) SCC 518))". On the subject of defective investigation stating “the Court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an
accused person solely on the account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing
into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.”
Which vitiates the impugned sanctions over Appellant.
That, impugned order passed by Hon’ble High Court are quite illegal and without
having legal aspect. As enshrined in the light of “ 6State of UP. Vs Shanke, AIR 1981
SC 897, where the Hon’ble Apex Court Stated that “ The High Court in rejecting the
evidence of the eye-witnesses and other material witnesses examined by the
prosecution were, with respect, clearly unsustainable, whereas those given by the trial
court in accepting the evidence of these eye-witnesses were weighty and sound. We,
therefore, permit this appeal, set aside the impugned order of acquittal passed by the
High Court” therefore it is unlawful for High Court to replace an expert’s opinion with
5
Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 (5) SCC 518
6
State of UP. Vs Shanke, AIR 1981 SC 897
PAGE NO. 18
his own conclusion. Hon’ble High court did not guise tech Experts Anni’s opinion on
the matter.
In the landmark judgement of 7Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd
it was held that, Expert is understood as a person who devotes and give all time to his
time, study, observation and practice to a special experience and possesses high
knowledge and skill in a3 particular field or subject.
That, Ravi claims that his social media accounts were hacked and that he was not
responsible for the explicit and malicious messages sent to X. If it can be demonstrated
that there were hacking attempts on his accounts and that his accounts were
compromised, this could suggest that someone else was behind the cyberbullying. Ravi
also claims that his privacy was invaded when the police gained unauthorized access to
his computer system to extract information from his social media accounts.
This could be seen as a violation of his rights and may impact the admissibility of
evidence against him. The court will need to weigh the evidence and arguments from
both sides to determine Mr. Ravi's liability. If it can be established beyond a reasonable
doubt that he was responsible for the cyberbullying and harassment, he may be held
liable for the offenses under relevant sections of the Indona Penal Code (IPC) and the
Information Technology (IT) Act, as mentioned in the case. However, if there is
reasonable doubt about his involvement or if the hacking claim is substantiated, his
liability may be in question.
Hence for Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indona may set aside the impugned judgement of
Hon’ble High Court of Maha Pradesh and Learned trial Court.
7
Ramesh Chandra Agarwal vs. Regency Hospital ltd., AIR 2010 SC 806
PAGE NO. 19
ISSUE 2:
2. WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION FOR HIM, AND SHOULD HE BE REGARDED AS A
JUVENILE OR AN ADULT IN THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
It is humbly submitted before Supreme Court of Indona that the Appellant should not be
regarded as an adult in the legal proceeding, the subordinate court and honorable high court did
gross injustice in this matter by rejecting Appellant to be treat as a juvenile but it clearly
unlawful.
As, Appellant is confined within judicial boundaries of law, but the question has raise should a
Person who still hasn’t completed his age of 18 years could be trialed as an Adult offender
while, Offences he being accused of levied him punitive punishment which a guilty person may
face. Such the question is vital one because it tethers us with justice system which does not
bound by judicial jurisprudence but revising and purulent the fundamentals of human Rights
which being violated through and through in this case.
On the fact that Appellant had disagreement which altercation in their friendship. It shall not
have been enough grounds for considering Appellant had any ill intent for perform actions
which subject him as Offender. Since, according to the facts which also stated by witnesses 2,
Dr. Rajesh Mehta (Mental Health Councilor, at Hogwants High School) in his testimony on 24
February “Ravi and X had booked counselling sessions after their quarrel, Ravi was calm and
decided to apply to other places for studies abroad. Ravi to Dr. Mehta, was very mature for his
age. He also added that X was very bitter about the quarrel, though she agreed to resolve the
disagreement though she agreed to resolve disagreement.”
Thus, the petition on based the sanctity of the law, should not face charges which envisaged under
I.P.C. for an offender.
Section 2(35) of juvenile justice act 2015, clarify that juvenile means a child a below the age
of eighteen years.
PAGE NO. 20
2.1 Preliminary Assessment of the Capability Conducted by Juvenile Justice Board
However, a special mechanism has been created for them. Such young offenders (who
breaks laws) are known as juveniles and are governed under the Juvenile Justice Act
(Care and Protection of Children) 2015. They are not treated like adult offenders nor
punished with them just to prevent them from turning into dreadful and habitual
offenders. The aim is to give them a new form in soceity with the help of the juvenile
justice system and make them sober citizens.
Section 2(33) of the 8Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) 2015 Act
provides that “those offences for which the minimum punishment under the IPC (indona
penal code), 1860 or any other legislation for the time being in force is imprisonment
for seven years or more,” will be considered as heinous offences.
But, here in this present case scenario, it is clearly seems that the Appellant convicted
under section 354A,354,354D and 509 of IPC and section 66C and 66E of the IT act,
but in all these given section the maximum punishment is not more than 7 years so, here
it is injustice to consider this case as a heinous crime and not according to law, because
it is clearly mention in 2(33) of JJ act “those offences for which the minimum
punishment under the IPC, 1860 or any other legislation for the time being in force is
imprisonment for seven years or more,” will be considered as heinous offences. But
here this criteria does not reminisce in aforesaid case, hence present case does not falls
under purview of heinous crime.
And also if consider this as a heinous crime even after neglecting section 2(33) of JJ
ACT, here also As per section 15 of the Act, a juvenile offender, between the age
of 16-18, who has committed a heinous offence may be treated as an adult by
putting him to trial under the criminal justice system. However, a juvenile offender
can only be tried as an adult under the Act, after the juvenile justice Board (with the
assistance of psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts) has assessed
the juvenile offender on the following:
(i.) The ability of the juvenile to commit such a murder (mens rea and physical capacity);
(ii.) His ability to comprehend the consequences of the offence committed;
8
JUVINILE JUSTICE ( CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
PAGE NO. 21
(iii.) The circumstances in which the offence was committed by accused.
Hence, the facts pretested in this case this present irregularities and juvenile justice board did
not assessed anything in this case about the above mentioned requirements. Which regards
Appellant to consider as adult in this case and it is within confinement of unlawfulness. Thus
Appellant should be consider as a juvenile according to laws.
In the landmark case, 9Gopinath Ghosh v State of West Bengal (1984), wherein it was held
that,
“Even though the issue of age determination was not considered, it was mandatory for the
court to discuss the question of age of the accused person. In this case, one of the accused
who was convicted for the offence of murder appealed that he was under the age of 18 years
on the date of commission of offence, and hence falls within the criteria of “child” according
to the West Bengal Children Act, 1959.”
2.2 IMPORTANT LANDMARK JUDGEMENT:
As well as 10Salil Bali v. Union of Indona & anr, it was discovered to amend the Juvenile
Justice law present and to deduct or reduce the age from 18 years to 16 years to amend the
juvenile law in such a way that the juveniles who have committed the heinous offences like,
sexual assault and murder should be tried as an adult. The Appellant urged that it is necessary
to consider Sections 2(k) and 2(l) and 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000, in the light of criminal offences that are committed by people belonging
to the age group of 16-18 years.
The Supreme Court rejected the plea and held that the Juvenile Act is based on sound
principles and with compatibility to the Constitution of Indona and also Supreme Court
asserted that the Act is to provide rehabilitative and restorative mechanisms and help to
9
Gopinath Ghosh v State of West Bengal., 1984 SCR (1) 803
10
Salil Bali v. Union of Indona & anr, (2013) 7 SCC 705
PAGE NO. 22
juveniles. The age of 18 years has been decided on the scientific and psychological grounds
that, until this age, juveniles can be reformed and restored back into society.
In the case of 11Muktesh & ors v. State of Delhi, popularly known as “Delhi Gang Rape case”
or
“Nirbhaya case” the apex court refused to grant the harsher punishment on the account of the
heinousness of the conduct and tried him as a minor. One of the rapists was a minor at the time
which gave him a security from harsh punishment which led to questions, outrage amongst the
public seeking justice which led the court to think about it all over again.
In all above cases Supreme Court upheld that the accused below age of 18 consider to be a
juvenile and held there will be a different procedure to treat them.
There were also demands to lower the age of juveniles to 16 years, which the
Justice J S Verme Committee Report summarily rejected.
12
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, Thr. Member Juvenile justice board (2014)
The Supreme Court in this case, while interpreting the Act, observed that the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous and provides a clear legislative intention of rehabilitating and
restoring juveniles. For this reason, it has classified people below 18 years of age as juveniles,
whose investigation and punishment are done differently as compared to adult criminals.
Moreover, the Constitution does not forbid such categorization, which is based on intelligible
differences having a rational connection with the objective sought. Thus, the Apex Court upheld
the decision to treat people under 18 years of age as separate under the Act.
Hence, it is clearly shown that high court did injustice with Appellant by
declaring Appellant as an adult and it is humbly prayed to honorable
supreme court to not to treat Appellant as an adult.
11
Muktesh & ors v. State of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1
12
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, Thr. Member Juvenile justice board (2014) SLP NO.1953
PAGE NO. 23
ISSUE 3:
3. WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED

AND LEGITIMATE?
That, since Appellant haven’t attained the age of 18 years, the Appellant needs to be seen as a
Child or a late teenager. Therefore the Proceeding conducted against him need to fall under
13
Juvenile justice Act on which under Section 2(9), 2(33) which lay the ground for differentiate
“Heinous offence” & “Serious offence”, As well as the ‘Best interest child and disclosing of
identity of children’ and it is laid down as
SECTION 2(9): “best interest of child” means the basis for any decision taken regarding the
child, to ensure fulfilment of his basic rights and needs, identity, social well-being and
physical, emotional and intellectual development;
SECTION 2(33): “heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum
punishment under the Indona Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the time being in
force is imprisonment for seven years or more;
By the help of the definition of heinous offence defined in section 2(33) of juvenile justice
act (2015) we got to know that the Appellant is not liable for heinous offence because
there is no section defined in indian penal code in which the imprisonment held to be
more than seven years, hence according to this section Appellant should not be treated
for heinous offence and the verdict given by hon’ble high court is clearly unjustified and
illegitimate.
There are a number of factor should be consider, including the severity of the crime, the
juvenile’s age and maturity level, and the potential for rehabilitation.
On the other hand, it is also important to remember that juveniles are still developing and that
they have the potential for rehabilitation. In this case, a 10-year prison sentence may be too
harsh and may not be necessary to achieve the goals of punishment and deterrence. In present
case Appellant is convicted for cyber bullying so, according to laws it is clear that this is not
a heinous offence. Hence it is humbly submitted before honorable supreme court of indona
that,
13
JUVINILE JUSTICE ( CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015
PAGE NO. 24
• Juveniles are still developing and hence have the potential for rehabilitation.
• A 10 year prison sentence may be too harsh and may not be necessary to achieve the goals
of punishment and deterrence.
• A 10 year prison can have a devastating impact on a juvenile’s life, making it difficult for
them to find a job or get an education after they are released.
• A 10 year prison sentence can disproportionality impact juveniles of colour and from low
income communities.
3.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):
Article 1 for the purposes of the present convention, a child means every human being under the
age of eighteen year unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
Article 37 states parties shall ensure that:

(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other savage, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for
offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty arbitrarily or unlawfully. The arrest,
confinement or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be
used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time line.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
(Beijing Rules): These rules, which were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
1985, provide guidance on how to implement the CRC in the juvenile justice system. The
Beijing Rules state that juvenile punishments should be "the least possible necessary to
achieve the desired result" and that they should be focused on rehabilitation.
PAGE NO. 25
Important authorities cited above clearly states that the juvenile should not be punished harsher
because it will not only destroy him from inside but also such harsh punishment will destroy him
from outside also.
14The youth criminal justice act (Canada): this law sets a maximum sentence of two years
for juvenile who commit serious crimes. It also provide for a number of alternative sanctions,
such as restorative justice programs and youth diversion programs.
In 15R. v. C.D.; [2005] a youngster pleaded guilty to arson, breach of a recognisance, and
the possession of a weapon. He received a short sentence of six months of deferred custody
due to the Youth Criminal Justice Act , Appeals against this case, state that the youth has
committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be imprisoned for a period of two
or more years.
15
NIRBHAYA CASE:
The 2012 Delhi gang-rape is a popularly known landmark case that make changes in the Indian
judiciary system. One of the accused of rape in this case was a minor. The sixth defendant's name
cannot be given for some legal reasons as he was 17 at the time when he commit offence and was
tried as a minor. He was found guilty on charges of rape and murder and sentenced to three years
imprisonment in a reform facility which is the maximum sentence available to a juvenile.
But latter he was released from a correctional center on 20 December 2015, despite protests
and legal challenges. His identity has been changed and no record of his crime will remain in
the society.
Also in nirbhaya case juvenile at the time of crime, was sentence to three years in a reform
facility. By the help of this case it is clear that the juvenile should be treated differently and
should give a chance to reform themselves.
14
The youth criminal justice act (Canada)(2002)
15
R. v. C.D.; [2005]
15
Mukesh & ANR V. state of NCT delhi & ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
PAGE NO. 26
Hence it is humbly prayed to hon’ble supreme court of indona that penalty imposed
on Appellant is clearly unjustified and illegitimate.
On this Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 16Shilpa Mittal vs Union of Indona & Ors. AIR
2020
It has highlighted that offence which does not carry a minimum penalty of seven years cannot
be treated as heinous offences however the Act does not address the 4th category of offences.
We are aware of the views expressed by us above that this Court cannot legislate. However, if
we do not deal with this issue there would be no guidance to the Juvenile Justice Boards to deal
with children who have accomplished such offences which definitely are serious, or may be
more than serious offences, even if they are not heinous offences. Since two views are possible
we would prefer to take a view which is in favor of children and, However our opinion, We
don’t issue 4th category of offence, It should be the Legislature take the call in this matter, but
till it does so, in exercise of powers conferred under Article142 of the Constitution.”
We would request Court to
pronounce his judgement by taking this in view that Appellant has not attainted the age of 18
years and still a 17 year old teenager and he treated fairly accordance with best interest of the
child. In furtherance to this as quoted in Subramanian Swamy vs Raju (2014) cited. It was noted
that the legislature had placed all persons under the age of 18 in a separate category to be treated
differently, with a separate and different process of inquiry, trial, and punishment. Even if there
are inequalities between people below the age of 18, such classification is not illegal because it
is linked to the goal of juvenile justice legislation.
3.2 17DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY:

Proportionality means that the judiciary action should not be more drastic than it ought
to be for obtaining the desired result. this doctrine says that that the cannon should not
be used to shoot a sparrow. Thus this doctrine tries to balance means with ends.
16
Shilpa Mittal vs Union of Indona & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 405
17
DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY
PAGE NO. 27
The sentence may be considered disproportional according to the doctrine of

proportionality, especially considering the Appellant's age and mental maturity, should
be taken into account.
But Hon’ble High Court’s sanctions against Appellant mortifying Appellant’s as it,
There is errors in dimensions being over looked by sub-ordinate court in determining
the proportionality of offence as the judgement was wholly based on the heated
argument between parties without considering the evidence of hacking , in support to
this under evidence law section 88A , where it is state “ the court may presume that an
electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the
addressee to whom the message profess to be address corresponds with the message as
fed into his computer for transmission: but the Court shall not make any presumption
as to the person by whom the such message was sent. Therefore the court to presume
that Ravi is the actual sender is unjust.
As enshrined in case of 18Kedarnath Kashyap vs. State Of Chhattisgarh,.
During the investigation, it was found that explicit photos of the complainant were
found in the mobile phones of Applicant No. 1 Kedarnath and Jamnabal and the hard
disc of the computer of Applicant No. 2 However, none of the witnesses had stated that
Kedarnath had shown, transmitted or published those vile photos to anyone. Since the
offense of spread those v i l e photos was not established, the applicant was
acquitted.”
That, the picture shared though the disguise of Appellant account on pebble were Semi-
nudes which were share by an anonymous person. Thus, there should have been no
emphasize on Appellant to be sanction with such rigorous and punitive punishment.
Since, not just only Ravi is still young and in his teenage, But there was no involvement
of Ravi in the unfaithful event which transpired the causality of truth which establishes
that Appellant is an innocent Teenager. Hence, it is request to honorable SC that the
Appellant is not liable for the penalty imposed on him.
18
Kedarnath Kashyap vs. State Of Chhattisgarh,. AIR (2018)
PAGE NO. 28
ISSUE 4:
WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BTO PRIVACY HAS
BEEN BRACHED IN THE INVESTIGATION AS HIS SYSTEM WAS
LOOKED IN TO WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION AND KNOWLEDGE?
WHETER THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE
AFORESAID GROUND?
That, Ravi also claims that his privacy was invaded when the police gained unauthorized access
to his computer system to extract information from his social media accounts. This could be
seen as a violation of his rights and may impact the admissibility of evidence against him. The
court will need to weigh the evidence and arguments from both sides to determine Ravi's
liability. It also establishes a reasonable doubt that was he responsible for the cyberbullying
and harassment, whether he may be held liable for the offenses under relevant sections of the
Indona Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, as mentioned in the case.
However, if there is reasonable doubt about his involvement or if the hacking claim is
substantiated, his liability may be in question. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to
establish Ravi's guilt, and it will be up to the court to make a final determination.
4.1 PROVISION IN CONSTITUTION OF INDONA:
Since the right to privacy is consider as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution,
Article 21 in 19The Constitution of Indona 1949:
Article 21 of Indona constitution, Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
To take away this fundamental right, even of an accused, there must be a law ratify by
20Maneka
Parliament and the Law must meet the test of Article 21 as laid down in Gandhi vs
Union of Indona., it must be just, fair and reasonable or equitable not illusory.
19
CONSTITUTION OF INDONA,1950
20
Maneka Gandhi vs union of indona.,AIR 1978 SC 597
PAGE NO. 29
Till today, no law is enacted by Parliament empowering any Court to give direction to accused to
give password and any information contained in mobile phones of accused. Self- Incrimination
define in constitution Even during police interrogation, the accused is entitled to remain silent,
therefore insisting on revealing passcode or to unlock his mobile phone and to open his E-mail
accounts amounts to compelling him to be a witness against himself, is consider as the violation
of Section 161 (2) of the 21Code of Criminal Procedure and also under articles 20 clause (3) and
21 of the Constitution.
Right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by article 21 of Indona constitution but here
in this case right to privacy has been clearly violated by the respondent for investigation.
4.2 International Concepts of Privacy:
Article 12 of 22Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary unlawfully interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence
nor to attack upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.”
Article 17 of 23International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (to which Indona is a
party) states “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful intrusion with his privacy,
family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and modesty”
Article 8 of 24European Convention on Human Rights states “Everyone has the right to
respect for his private and family life, his home and his similitude or similarity; there shall be
no interference by a public authority except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
welfare of the country, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others.
In the year 2017, the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of 25Justice K.S.
21
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973
24
European Convention on Human Rights,(1953)
25
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indona, (2017) 10 SCC 1
PAGE NO. 30
Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indona, also known as the Aadhar case. A nine-judge Constitution
Bench headed by Chief Justice, J.S. Khehar on 24th August, 2017 gave a landmark decision
on Right to Privacy. Supreme Court ruled and declare that Right to Privacy is "intrinsic to life
and personal liberty" and is constitutionality protected under Article 21 and as a part of the
freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Reading out the common conclusion
arrived at by the nine-judge Bench, the Chief Justice said the Court had overruled its own eight
judges Bench and six-judge Bench judgements of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases
delivered in 1954 and 1961 respectively that privacy is not protected under the Constitution.
The questions posed above have been fully considered by the Supreme Court in
People’s 26Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of Indona, In this case Public Litigation
was filed protesting rampant instances of phone tapping of politician’s phones by CBI.
The court ruled that ‘telephone conversation or discussion is an important facet of a
man’s private life’. The right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s
home or office without any interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”.
So, tapping of telephone is a serious invasion of right to privacy. This means that
telephone tapping would infract Article 21 unless it is permitted under the procedure
established by law. The procedure has to be “just, fair and reasonable or suitable”
In 28R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., the apex Court held that the right to privacy is a ‘right to
let alone’. No one can publish and publicate anything without his consent, whether truthful or
otherwise whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy
of the person concerned and would be liable in the action of damages.
That is under the Constitution itself. Under Article 20(3), no person accused of any offence
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
The right against self-incrimination must be read along with the Criminal Procedure Code,
which also has the similar provisions Section 161(2) binds a person who is interrogated by
police during an inquiry to answer all questions honestly, but it also shields the person from
answering questions that would subsequently lead to the person’s incrimination.
26
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of Indona, AIR 1997 SC 568
PAGE NO. 31
It was held in the case of 27Nandidni Satpathy v. P. L. Dani (1978) that we cannot force or
compel or force a person accused of an infraction to submit or make a statement that is against
himself. The individual is free to keep silent because he has a right to silent. However, it is
critical to safeguard such a person since a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indona. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of Indona provides
that no person accused of an offence shall be force to be a witness against himself. In order to
avail the benefit of this provision, the Appellant must demonstrate that:
1. the disclosure of the password is in the nature of personal testimony; and
2. the disclosure of the password would lead to self-incrimination.
The Investigating Officer, during the time of an investigation, could always issue any direction
and/or make a request to the accused or other persons connected with the matter to furnish
information, to provide material objects or the like. These directions are routine in any
investigation. Thus, during the course or mind of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
could always request and/or direct the accused to furnish the password, passcode or
Biometrics, enabling the opening of the smartphone and/or email account. It is up to the mind
of accused to accede to the said request and or directions. If the accused were to provide such
a password, passcode or Biometrics, the Investigating Officer could make use of the same and
gain an access to the same. All things are clear in this case by the fact that police did not ask
for any password and anything else to access his social media account, meanwhile police did
this with itself without asking to Appellant which causes violation of Appellant’s right and
hence the whole investigation based on building of lies.
In the landmark judgement of 28selvi & ors. V. state of Karnataka (2010)
This case dealt with the issue of the admissibility or relevancy of evidence obtained through
nacro analysis and other forms of involuntary testing. The supreme court of indona held that
sucj method of obtaining evidence violate the right to privacy and dignity under article 21 and
20(3) of the constitution.
27
Nandidni Satpathy v. P. L. Dani (1978) AI 1025, SCR (3) 608
28
selvi & ors. V. state of Karnataka., AIR (2010) SC 1974
28
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., 1994 scc
PAGE NO. 32
Indona does not have clear and direct rules on investigating agencies seizing personal data
from laptops, phones and other digital devices, but that does not mean they can seize data
at will, former Supreme Court Justice B N Srikrishna told us in an interview. Srikrishna
chaired a committee of experts that in 2018 submitted a draft data privacy bill, which the
union government amended and later withdrew. Personal data privacy is a fundamental
right protected under constitution, and police should be required to follow separate
procedures for search and seizure of electronic data, he said.
29
In Rayala M. Bhuvneswari v. Nagaphomender Rayala, the Appellant filed a divorce
petition in the Court against his wife and to substantiate his case sought to produce a hard disc
relating to the conversation and talking of his wife recorded in U.S. with others. She denied
some portions of the conversation. The Court held that the act of tapping by the husband of
conversation of his wife with others without her knowledge was consider to be illegal and
amounted to infringement of her right to privacy under article 21 of the Constitution. These
talks even if true cannot be admissible in evidence.
30S. Rengarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram Supreme Court Case (1989): in this case examined
the right to privacy in the context of phone tapping by the government. It emphasized the need
for judicial review and the protection of an individual's privacy rights.
Under the code of criminal procedure the police need to obtain a warrant to enter your
house or arrest you. The same principle should apply if they're dealing with data,
because data privacy is also an important fundamental right under Article 21. It is as
sacrosanct as one's right to life and liberty, both of which are protected under Article
21.
Hence, it is clear like a mirror that here in this case Appellant’s fundamental right
privacy has been violated by the police in investigation so, the investigation should be
set aside on the aforesaid ground.
29
In Rayala M. Bhuvneswari v. Nagaphomender Rayala., AIR (2007)
30
S. Rengarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram Supreme Court Case (1989) SCR (2) 20
PAGE NO. 33
Prayer
It is therefore humbly pray that present appeal may kindly allow and judgement passed by the
Hon’ble high court and learned trial Court may kindly be set aside and Appellant may kindly be
acquitted in the light of aforesaid appeal in the interest of justice
1. Appellant may not be held liable for the cyberbullying and harassment endured by X.
2. The impugned judgement sanctioned by Hon’ble High Court and Learned trial Court may
be set aside, As they are erroneous, invalid and unjustified.
3. Appellant may kindly be acquitted in interest of justice.
And /pass such other order in light of justice, equity and good conscience which this Hon’ble Apex
court may feel fit and in proper circumstance of the case.
Place : Mombeshwar THE HUMBLY

Date : 25/11/23 APPELLANT
THOUGH COUNSEL
PAGE NO. 34

Itm Moot Court Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Itm Moot Court Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT TC-AJMC 006R

ARUN JAITLEY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDONA

CRIMINAL APPLELLATE JURISDICTION

In the matter of,

Sections354A, 354C, and 509 of THE INDONAN PENAL CODE, 1860

CRIMINAL APPLELLATE JURISDICTION NO. / 2023

(UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDONA)

STATE OF MAHA PRADESH …….RESPONDENT

SCC SUPREMECOURT CASES

H.R. HUMAN RIGHTS

U/S UNDER SECTION

U/A UNDER ARTICLE

H.P. HIMACHAL PRADESH

IPC INDONA PENAL CODE

CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

T.N. TAMIL NADU

C.P CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

R.I. RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT

UOI UNION OFI NDONA

U.P. UTTAR PRADESH

M.P. MAHA PRADESH

E.A. EVIDENCE ACT

L.P. LEGAL PROCEEDING

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................. 10

STATEMENTS OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF PLEADING ........................................................................................................ 14

1.1 Opinions of experts.

1.2 Opinion for Electronic evidence (Section 45A).

2.2 important landmark judgement.

WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN BRACHED

4.2 International Concepts of Privacy.

(10) Commentary on the information technology act by J.N. BAROWALIA.

S.NO. CASES CITATIONS

2. State of Maharashtra vs. Dammu s/o Gopinath 10 MARCH, 1999 SC 129

3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujrat AIR 2006

4. Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 (5) SCC 518

5. State of UP. Vs Shanke, AIR 1981 SC 897

8. Salil Bali v. Union of Indona & anr. (2013) 7 SCC 705

14. Kedarnath Kashyap vs. State Of Chhattisgarh. AIR (2018)

15. Maneka Gandhi vs union of indona . AIR 1978 SC 597

16. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of Indona, (2017) 10 SCC 1

17. AIR 1997 SC 568

18. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., 1994 SCC (6) 632

19. (1978) AI 1025, SCR (3) 608

20. selvi & ors. V. state of Karnataka. AIR (2010) SC 1974

21. In Rayala M. Bhuvneswari v. Nagaphomender AIR (2007)

2. WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

4. WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BTO PRIVACY HAS

2. WHETHER THE AGE OF RAVI WARRATS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR

Here all the laws are against to treat Appellant as a adult.

3. WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED AND

4. WHETHER THE RAVI’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BTO PRIVACY HAS BEEN

1.1 Opinions of experts:

Opinion for Electronic evidence (Section 45A):

1.2 Illegitimacy of Punitive punishment for Cyberbullying

2.1 Preliminary Assessment of the Capability Conducted by Juvenile Justice Board

(iii.) The circumstances in which the offence was committed by accused.

2.2 IMPORTANT LANDMARK JUDGEMENT:

3. WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON MR. RAVI IS JUSTIFIED

3.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):

Article 37 states parties shall ensure that: