IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, AT

NEW DELHI
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.______

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

VERSUS

SURESH & OTHERS…………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT

-MEMORIAL on behalf of the Appellant-

-8th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018-

INDEX
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPLENT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY ARTICLE 136
0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,TO INITIATE THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IN
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE APELLENT MOST HUMBLY AND
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT IN THE PRESENT MATTER.
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

THE INCIDENT
Miss Gyanwati age of 20 years was a student of B.Com (final) in Commerce College, Jaipur
on 31st December 2017 after New Year’s party was going on her scooty to her residence and
then near ‘Jawahar Circle’ she was kidnapped by three students namely Suresh, Mahesh, and
Dinesh. They intercepted her scooty and on gunpoint carried her in a Honda City car bearing
number HR 16F 7337 to an aloof place in the interior on Tonk Road, Jaipur. At the said
place, having only one room other two students namely Gyanesh and Virender were waiting.
The complainant was carried in the room where all the five students drank Scotch Whiskey
and the victim was tied and was raped by all the accused one by one out of which Virender, is
a minor with age 17 years. The victim was raped by all the accused and was tied in iron
chains in a locked room and Virender was left to watch and wait. On the 1st of Jan 2018
Suresh came along with Brijesh, a brilliant and handsome student, whose father is a
millionaire. After having snacks with whisky Suresh asked Brijesh if he was interested in
having intercourse with the victim; he accepted the offer and both raped the victim one after
the other. The complainant was left unconscious and her uterus was, ruptured with bruises on
her breast and other parts of her body. On 2nd January 2018, Mahesh contacted Manmohan,
the father of the victim on the landline and informed him about his daughter, demanded a
ransom of 5 Lakhs if he wanted his daughter safe otherwise. On 3rd January 2018 the
victims father was again contacted by Brijesh who instructed him to come alone at a specified
place in the hill side at 11am. Manmohan borrowed Rs 5 Lakhs from Gyanchand and on a
motorbike left for the scheduled place. He was then received by Dinesh and after taking his
physical search he was sent to Mahesh who was sitting at a distance. Shri Manmohan handed
over the cash bag and his mobile to Mahesh and thereafter, he was blindfolded and was
carried to the room which was unlocked and the victim was handed over with a warning that
if they tried to make any report they would flash out her video on Social Media and would be
killed.
The victim’s father carried her to their residence and elaborated the whole incident to his wife
Mohini, who then, crossed checked with the victim. Hence, all the three took the decision to
report to the police and to see that strict action was taken against the culprits.

FIR
The complainant was carried to Chaksu Police Station, where FIR no. 10 dated 3rd January
2018 with names of all the accused for offences under 376, 364, 364 A, 34 IPC R/W Sec.
25/27 of The Arms Act, was registered and statements of the victim was recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C
 JUDGEMENT BY LD. TRAIL COURT
The Trail Court, Jaipur on the assessment of the Evidence on Record, based upon the
witnesses, medical reports and materials ceased. The court convicted the accused persons and
their co-accused under the mentioned sections of law, as follows:-
a) Suresh S/O Former Chief Minister, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
lifetime and fined with Rs. 10,000/-
b) Dinesh S/O DIG Police, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for lifetime and
fined with Rs. 10,000/-
c) Brijesh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for lifetime and fined with Rs.
10,000/-
d) Virender, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for lifetime and fined with Rs.
10,000/-
e) Gyanesh, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for lifetime and fined with Rs.
10,000/-
f) Mahesh, was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for lifetime and fined with Rs.
10,000/-
g) All the accused namely Suresh, Dinesh, Brijesh, Virender, Gyanesh & Mahesh were
directed to compensate the victim with an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- jointly and severally.
h) State Government directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the victim.
 APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

Aggrieved by the said judgement, the accused lodged an appeal with the Hon’ble Supreme
Court against the affirmation by the appellate court. They have challenged the constitutional
validity of life imprisonment and draconian levy of fine and compensation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted appeals. Notices have been issued to the victim,
her father, Central Government, Rajasthan State, and all the other States as to the appeal and
in regard to constitutional validity of the provision.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: THE CONVICTION FOR THE ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED

OFFENCES IS UNFAIR AND CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
It is vehemently contended before this court that the lower court has been erroneous in
convicting the accused persons. First the draconian levy of fine and compensation by the trial
court upon the accused have been unjust. Secondly, the lower court has been fallacious in
convicting the accused with life imprisonment. Thirdly, the charges applied under Sec. 24
and Sec. 27 are not justified. Fourthly, the charges framed against the accused under Sec. 465
Sec. 468 and Sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code were improper, unreliable and held no
evidence against it.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS
RELIABLE OR NOT.
Firstly, the medical report is incomplete and several pre-requisite tests of the accused have
not been conducted. Secondly, the fact that only the evidences from the accused was
recovered and the evidences from the victims end was not recovered.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1:-
THE CONVICTION FOR THE ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES IS
UNFAIR AND CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LIFE
IMPRISONMENT.
It is vehemently contended before this court that the lower court has been erroneous in
convicting the accused persons. First the draconian levy of fine and compensation by the trial
court upon the accused have been unjust. Secondly, the lower court has been fallacious in
convicting the accused with life imprisonment. Thirdly, the charges applied under Sec. 24
and Sec. 27 are not justified. Fourthly, the charges framed against the accused under Sec. 465
Sec. 468 and Sec. 471 of the Indian Penal Code were improper, unreliable and held no
evidence against it.

1.1 Draconian levy of fine and compensation by the trial court upon the accused
have been convicted

According to the fact sheet the trail court on the assessment of the evidences on record,
convicted the accused persons and their co-accused under Sections 376, 364A, 465, 468, 471,
120B IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. All the accused were fined with Rs. 10,000/-
each and were directed to compensate the victim with an amount of Rs 50 Lacs jointly and
severally.
In The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors1, the apex court while reversing the judgment
said that as far as the sentence is concerned, the court has to strike a balance. We are
informed that the respondents have not been involved in any other offence more than a
decade ago. These are some of the factors which we need to take into consideration while
imposing an appropriate sentence on the respondents.
In this case, we have, while convicting the respondents, imposed, for reasons already set out
above, the sentence of 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine
further R.I. for one year on each of the respondents for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Therefore, we do not, in the instant case, for those very reasons, consider it desirable to award
any compensation, in addition to the fine already imposed, particularly as no scheme also
appears to have been drawn up as yet.
Thus, taking the above case into consideration, the fine levied upon the accused can be said to
be too heavy since according to the fact sheet nothing mentions their involvement in any
other offence in their entire life’s which proves their involvement in such a crime for the first
time. Keeping in consideration the fact that no man is perfect and that every individual

1
1996 AIR 1393 1996 SCC (2) 384 JT 1996 (1) 298 1996 SCALE (1)309
 deserves a second chance, it would be a request to the court to lessen the fine imposed upon
them.

1.2 The trail court has been fallacious in convicting the accused with life imprisonment.
According to the fact sheet the court on the assessment of the evidences on record, convicted
the accused persons and their co-accused under Sections 376, 364A, 465, 468, 471, 120B IPC
and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for life time.
In Shimbhu & Anr v. State Of Haryana2, the victim in this present case was gang raped by the
accused. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and awarded them 10 years
rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the same. The accused filed an appeal and the
learned counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the accused should be awarded
lesser punishment as there has been a compromise between the parties.
But the court rejected these contentions and held that rape is a non-compoundable offence
and cannot be considered a leading factor in reducing the punishment. Because there might
be a possibility that the victim has been pressurized for the compromise.
By the Criminal Law Amendment3, 2013, the proviso which said that in exceptional
circumstances, the punishment may be reduced, has been deleted in the wake of the rising of
crimes against women. Though this deletion does not affect the discretionary powers given to
the judiciary.
The court has warned the subordinate courts and the High court’s again and again in the
words:
This is yet another opportunity to inform the subordinate Courts and the High Courts that
despite stringent provisions for rape under Section 376 IPC, many Courts in the past have
taken a softer view while awarding sentence for such a heinous crime. This Court has in the
past noticed that few subordinate and High Courts have reduced the sentence of the accused
to the period already undergone to suffice as the punishment, by taking aid of the proviso to
Section 376(2) IPC.
With light to the above case it can be clearly understood that although the provisions for rape
under Section 376 IPC may be strict the court has every right to award less than stringent
sentences. Nevertheless stating that the accused have according to the fact sheet never been
involved in any heinous crimes before should be taken into consideration and not given such
draconian and erroneous conviction.

1.3 The charges applied under Sec. 25 and Sec. 27 are not justified.
According to the fact sheet, on the completion of the investigation drill Section 25 and 27 of
the Arms act was laid against the accused.

2
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1278-1279 OF 2013
3
Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_%28Amendment%29_Act,_2013
 Section 25 :- PUNISHMENT FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES
(1) Whoever –
(a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers
for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof,
any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm in
contravention of section 6; or
(d)bring into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of an class or description in
contravention of section 11,
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but
which may extend to to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Also, section 25 [(1B)] states that whoever –

(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention
of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under
section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in
contravention of that section; or
(c) sells, or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker,
manufacturer’s number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as
required by sub – section (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of sub – section (1)
of that section;
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition
in contravention of that section or;
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in
contravention of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, takes out of India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10;
or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12 ; or
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-
section (1) of section 21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of or a dealer in arms and ammunition fails, on being required to
do so by rules made under section 44 to maintain record or account or to make or such entries
as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry or prevents or obstruct the
inception of such record or account or the making of copies of entries there from or prevent
or obstruct the entry to any premises or other places where arms or ammunition are or is
manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or
refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept.
“According to Section 25 (1B), whoever has in his possession or carries any fire arm or
ammunition in contravention of section 3 of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment
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. It is thus clear that for the aforesaid offence the Court is
empowered to pass sentence of imprisonment of three years also and, therefore, it cannot be
said that for such offence sentence of imprisonment for less than three years is provided and,
therefore, unless it is otherwise found under the provisions of the Act that the offences or any
of the offence punishable under the provisions of the Act is bailable the offence for which the
petitioner has been accused in the present case is to be held bailable. The only provision
towards which attention of this Court has been invited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is Section 37 of the Act. Before the aforesaid Section is considered, some other
relevant provisions of the Act are also required to be considered”4

Section 27 of the Arms Act states as follows;

27. Punishment for using arms, etc.—
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of
section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in
contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person,
shall be punishable with death.
Offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act will not be attracted since there is no evidence to
show that petitioners have used any prohibited arms in contravention of Section 7. The mere
possession of prohibited arms will not be an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as laid
down by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of W.B5, it is submitted. Therefore,
petitioners are not liable for non-bailable offence, it is contended. Hence, anticipatory bail
may be granted, it is submitted.
In Mahendra Singh v. State of W.B6. “The possession of the arms in question has not been
shown to be inspired by any sinister purpose. There is no evidence of any undesirable
antecedents of the appellant, nor is there any suggestion that the arms were likely to be
used for some antisocial purpose. Their possession by the appellant might well have been
intended to be utilized for the purpose 944 Sup. CI/73 of self-defence, though undoubtedly

4
Amar Singh Naruka Vs. State of Rajasthan
5
(AIR 1973 SC 2288)
6
(AIR 1973 SC 2288)
the possession was without a proper licence. Considering all the relevant circumstances of
the case, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice-if the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced to that already undergone and a sentence of fine of P.s. 5001'- is in addition
imposed on the appellant and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is directed to
serve a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. We order accordingly.”
Hence,
Due to lack of evidence in the fact sheet it cannot be proved whether the accused have or did
not have a licence own or possess any arms or ammunition. Moreover, there is not any such
fact that can prove the use of the arm recovered from the accused for any act of harm or
death, thus it can be interpreted that there is a huge difference in holding an arm and
triggering it to cause any sort of possible harm or possible act which results in death.

1.4 The charges framed against the accused under Sec. 465 Sec. 468 and Sec. 471 of the
Indian Penal Code were improper, unreliable and held no evidence against it.
According to the fact sheet the accused were framed under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the
IPC.
Section 465 states- Punishment for forgery,
“Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years or with fine or both.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment for two years, fine or both non-cognizable bailable triable by magistrate of the
first class non compoundable.”
Section 468 states- Forgery for the purpose of cheating
Whoever commits forgery intending that the ( document or electronic record forged ) shall be
used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine,
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES
Imprisonment for seven years and fine cognizable non bailable triable by magistrate of the
first class non compoundable.”
Section 471 states- Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record
“Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record) whoever fraudulently or
dishonestly uses as genuine any, (document or electronic record) which he knows or has
reason to believe a forged ( document or electronic record) shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record)
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES
Punishment for forgery of such document cognizable bailable triable by Magistrate of First
class non compoundable

After understanding the proper definitions and uses of the above stated sections it can be said
that according to the fact sheet none of the accused have been found guilty of any of them
neither have they been involved in the crimes the sections state. Thus the fallacious charges
the trial court has framed against the accused is improper and not of factual preceding’s.
As stated in the above sections, it can clearly be interpreted that the accused were no where
involved in such offences and that the investigating in charge have no prove or evidence of
such against the accused since, none of them have been stated in the fact sheet. Therefore,
convicting them against these sections will be injustice.
Contention 2: WHETHER THE THEORY PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS
RELIABLE OR NOT.
Firstly, the medical report is incomplete and several pre-requisite tests of the accused have
not been conducted. Secondly, the fact that only the evidences from the accused was
recovered and the evidences from the victims end was not recovered.

2.1 Medical report is incomplete and several pre-requisite tests of the accused have not
been conducted.
According to the fact sheet the medical report by SMS hospital only had records of medical
tests of the victim. According to Section 53 Cr.P.C it states:-
“Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer.
1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and
alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that an examination of this person will afford evidence as to the
commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner,
acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for
any person acting in good faith in his aid under his direction, to make such an
examination of the person the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such
force as is reasonably for that purpose.”7
The accused should be examined to determine if there is anything to suggest that he
is impotent.
With thorough assessment of the above stated facts it can be clearly seen that the fact
sheet has no record of the medical tests of the accused which is in fact an important
factor to prove the accused guilty of such a heinous crime. Therefore, we plead the
Council to carefully take this fact into its account.

7
Section 53 Cr.P.C , THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973; Universal Law
Publishing
 2.2 The fact that only the evidences from the accused was recovered and the evidences
from the victims end was not recovered.
According to the fact sheet states that the investigating agency recovered evidences only from
the end of the accused and no evidence in its physical form was taken by the investigators
from the victim, only the statements of the victim were recorded.
This thus leaves us with the Benefit of doubt which states that:
The accused would be entitled to an acquittal because the prosecution has failed to discharge
its special burden of eliminating doubts. The accused may have failed to prove his plea but he
gets a benefit which, whether it is called the benefit of the exception pleaded or of doubt on
the whole case, is available to him only because he has succeeded in throwing the existence
of an ingredient of the offence into the region of reasonable doubt.
Reference: Section 105 of Evidence Act
Section105 – Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions
When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal
Code, (45 of 1860) or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of
the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume
the absence of such circumstances.
Illustrations
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know
the nature of the act.
The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of
the power of self-control;
The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except in the
case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain
punishments.
A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325.
The burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under section 335 lies on A.
Test of preponderance of probabilities:
Section 3 of the Evidence Act by itself lays down that a fact is said to be proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the Court considers its existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists. This is what is meantby the ‘test of probabilities’ or the ‘preponderance of
probabilities.’
 Relevant case laws with excerpts:
Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.8
It can be argued that the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ is vague in nature and the standard of
‘burden of proof contemplated under Section 105 should be somewhat specific, therefore, it
is difficult to reconcile both. But the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely,
that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is
entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind. The ‘reasonable doubt’
is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning
of the words ‘proved’, ‘disproved’ and ‘not proved’ lays down the standard of proof, namely,
about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent
man. The Section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a
man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, ‘believe it to exist’ and secondly in
which though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable
that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The
Act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard
by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to
circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be
arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be
disproved when the Court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so
probable in the view of a prudent man and now we come to the third stage where in the view
of a prudent man the fact is not proved i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is
this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal
disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a
suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by
‘a prudent man
“When such a deadlock occurs in other criminal prosecutions, the presumption of the
defendant's innocence assures acquittal. But in rape cases, normal operation of that
presumption is seriously impaired. The incidence of false accusations and the potential for
unjust convictions are perhaps greatest with sexual offenses.12 Women often falsely
accuse men of sexual attacks to extort money, to force marriage, to satisfy a childish desire
for notoriety, or to attain personal revenge. Their motives include hatred, a sense of shame
after consenting to illicit intercourse, especially when pregnancy results, and delusion. In
cases of delusion, the woman may describe the attack in remarkably convincing detail, for
she herself believes her story but fails to appreciate the significance and consequences of
the accusation. "Most women," according to a prominent psychiatrist, "entertain more or
less consciously at one time or another fleeting fantasies or fears that they are being or will
be attacked by a man.”9

According to the fact sheet, it was stated that Brijesh is “a brilliant and handsome student,
whose father is a millionaire”10 Thus, this description leaves us with the benefit of doubt that

8
VIJAYEE SINGH & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P AIR 1990 SC 1459
9
JOURNAL:- UNIVERSITY OF PENNYLVANIA LAW RIVIEW; VOL. 118:458 Pg. 460
10
Moot proposition Paragraph 2, pg. 1
 due to the money which he possessed as heir could be a reason the victim might have not
resisted on having a sexual intercourse with the accused with a hope of further being
benefitted by the accused.

According to the fact sheet, the victim was kidnapped on 31st December 2017 after the new
years party, however her father Shri Manmohan received a ransom call only on the 2nd of
January 201811. Thus, this lands on the reasonable doubt that why did the victim’s father not
find it necessary to file an FIR between the mentioned timed period when his daughter did
not come back home for almost two days. Was it not a matter of concern to the victims
family about their missing daughter. It might be of clear reasonable doubt that the family
might have been informed of her where about’s which could also be a reason why they would
have not been much concern about her.

Also mentioned in the fact sheet on 3rd January 2018, Shri Manmohan after being contacted
again on mobile by Brijesh went to the specified place on the hill side at 11am with the
ransom money of 5 lacs and without arms as he was required to, he was then received then by
Dinesh and after a physical search was taken to Mahesh where he handed over the money and
his cellphone to Mahesh. It could be surprising when thought about it that when the
investigation led by investigating officer Shri Sukhbhir Singh the investigation agency
recovered certain following items including the mobiles of all accused accept the mobile of
the victim’s father which he clearly handed over to Mahesh12 when he went to get his
daughter Gyanwati. This very reasonable doubt gives rise to suspicion that the investigation
report have been tampered and fabricated.

The peak of reasonable doubt, comes from the very facts mentioned in the factsheet that
Gyanwati was gangraped on 31st December 2017 after the New year’s party by 5 boys
namely, Suresh, Mahesh, Gyanesh, Dinesh and Virender. Then again on 1st January 2018
Suresh came long with a friend Brijesh who is a brilliant and a handsome student, son of a
millionaire; who then raped her again leading to grievous bodily injuries which included her
uterus being ruptured, she became unconscious and she had bruises on her breasts and all
over her body. To be precise, rapes takes a very heavy toll on the physical and psychological
as well as social health of a victim; but in this case Gyanwati stood as an exception as even
after being physically and mentally hurt for almost two days she was not rushed to the
hospital. Instead, her father after getting her back took her to their residence, where victim’s
mother Mohini had enough patience to ‘cross check’ with her and then found it more
important to go to the police station and file an FIR than immediately going to the hospital.
But what creates further doubt is the fact even Ms Gyanwati, the victim was in a state
physically and mentally to elaborate the whole incident first to her mother and then to the
police with all the particular details without being in any discomfort, when it actually takes a
more than few days to recover from such bodily injuries and in fact takes an unimaginably

11
Paragraph 3, Page 1, Moot Proposition
12
Paragraph 3, Page 2, Moot Proposition
longer time to get over the mental trauma or posttraumatic stress disorder which leads to
flashbacks, intrusive upsetting thoughts or say re-experiencing the trauma of a rape victim.
It could also get questionable when a parent would want to cross-check their own daughter
after such a traumatic situation13. When a child is hurt the parent without further investigation
would first look to comfort their child and not question the child of how it got hurt.
Moreover, the way the victim has been describe in the fact sheet, m=she might have already
looked physically tortured. What could have led a Mother to question and cross examine the
integrity of her own daughter? Also, after being called by the accused not once but twice14, it
would be source of amazement that the victim’s father did not relate the story to his wife
about the calls that he received about their daughter’s abduction and rape.
In the fact sheet, the statements of Manmohan along with the victim were also recorded who
affirmed certain stated facts and events which included the names of all the accused, their
identity, description of the place where his daughter was kept captive and raped15. It can be
an eyeopener on the notion that despite being blindfolded while received by the accused, that
too only by two of the accused and not all of them, namely Mahesh and Dinesh how could he
state the names of all of them under Section 161 Cr.P.C 16
“Cr.P.C 161. Examination of witnesses by police.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not
below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in
this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person
supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case Put to
him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to
expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of
an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true
record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.”
While taking into consideration CrPC 161 Statements are not valid unless the statements
confirmed on Oath in court. The witness may become hostile at any time in the trail. The
witness may give their statements under the influence of other external factors too. Dinesh is
the S/O DIG police, thus it leaves us with a reasonable doubt that due to certain biasness
against the DIG police, the statements recorded could have been influenced by certain people
who have something against him.
“In course whereof they not only interacted with her but also had closely followed her
conversation with her father on more than one occasion on the aspect of ransom”17
In the fact sheet it was clearly stated that the victim was first tied with black ropes and later
with iron chains to make sure she doesn’t run away, it would be questioning of how did she
13
Paragraph 3, Page 2 Moot Proposition
14
Paragraph 3 Page 1, Moot Proposition
15
Paragraph 4, Page 2 Moot Proposition
16
Paragraph 4 Page 2 Moot Proposition
17
Paragraph, 7 page 4 of moot Proposition
have a conversation with her father closely followed by the respondents on more than one
occasion on the aspect of ransom.
 PRAYER

THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARUMENTS ADVANCED,

REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO:
I. DECLARE: that the Trail Court was not justified in giving such a draconian
sentence of the accused.
II. Hold that the accused have a right to be acquitted as the prosecution story is
suffering from various infirmities.

AND PASS ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO GRANT AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNEDD THE COUNSELS
FOR THE APPELLANT SHALL FOREVER HUMBLY PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.