Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
___________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
MR. RAMBO…………………………………………………………………..APPELLANT
V.
UNION OF INDIA…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION:………………………………………………………………3
INDEX OF AUTHORITY:……………………………………………………………….5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:…………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF FACTS:………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:…………………………………………………………….
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:……………………………………………….......
ARGUMENT ADVANCED:……………………………………………………………
ISSUE 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………
ISSUE 2 ……………………………………………………………………………….
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
Cr msc. Criminal Miscellaneous
Del. Delhi
Art. Article
V. Versus
Sec. Section
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:
[A].INDIAN CASE LAWS
1.
2.
[B].STATUTES
1.
2.
[C].BOOKS
[D].WEBSITES
1. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
2. WWW.LAWLIVE.IN
3.WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement
2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and
(2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under
clause
(2).
4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
Section 29 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) reads as:
where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence
under section 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special court shall presume, that such person
has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be , unless the
contrary is proved.
Section 30 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) reads as:
(1). In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which require a culpable mental state
on the part of the accused, the Special court shall presume the existence of such mental
state but it shall be a defense for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental
state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2). For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court
believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not only merely when its existence is
established by a preponderance of probability.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
against his tutor Mr. Rambo ( India citizen who used to take his private classes for
Mathematics.
2. On 12.01.2018,upon returning from his tuition, Chintu who was then crying loudly
alleged that between 6:00 - 7:00 pm Mr. Rambo had inserted a pencil in his anus. The
said allegation was narrated by Chintu to his parents. Upon hearing of the said incident,
Chintu's parents rushed to Mr. Rambo's house situated 300 mts from their residence.
Upon arriving at Mr. Rambo's house, they discovered that he was putting away a
thrashing Mr. Rambo. Upon hearing the commotion, police arrived at the scene of crime
and took away Mr. Rambo, Chintu's parents and Chintu to the Police Station.
3. Thereafter the Police recorded the statements of Chintu's parents, Mr. Hari and Mr.
Raja (who had seen Chintu leave Mr. Rambo's house crying) and Chintu. Thereafter on
the same day an FIR was registered against Mr. Rambo under Section 6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 [ ''POCSO, 2012'' ] and Section 377 r/w
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [''IPC, 1860''] and Mr. Rambo was taken
HOSPITAL. Upon Chintu's medical examination the doctor issued a Medicolegal Certificate
being MLC no. 98765/18 wherein he noted ''THERE ARE NO SIGNS WHICH SUGGESTS
INSERTION OF PENIS OR PENIS LIKE OBJECT INTO ANAL CAVITY, CERTAIN REDDISHNESS
Chintu, his mother, father, Mr. Raja and Mr. Hari under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''CrPC, 1973'') . Further Chintu's statement under Section 164
Thereafter Charge sheet. (Final Report under Section 173 of CrPC, 1973 dated
10.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 377 and Section 511 of the IPC,
1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was filed in the Court of the Ld. Additional Session
6. The Ld. ASJ was pleased to take cognizance of the offences as alleged within the said
Final Report. Mr. Rambo pleaded not guilty and the Ld. ASJ proceeded to frame charges
against Mr. Rambo under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the POCSO, 2012 and under
7. Mr. Rambo filed a bail application along with an application requesting the Processing
the presumption against himself. The Ld. ASJ relying upon Section 29 read with Section
30 of POCSO, 2012 rejected the bail application filed by Mr. Rambo. The Ld. ASJ
dismissed the application under Section 173(8 CrPC, 1973 seeking that his
inadmissible.
8. During the trial, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses namely. PW 1 Chintu's
mother ( narrated that Chintu, came home crying and narrated the alleged incident ,
PW 2 Chintu's father ( narrated that Chintu came home crying and narrated the alleged
incident , PW 3 Chintu ( narrated the alleged incident , PW 4 Hari ( narrated that Chintu
left home crying ,PW 5 Raja ( narrated that Chintu leave home crying , PW 6 the Doctor
( exhibited the Medicolegal Report and PW 7 the Investigating Officer ( narrated the
entire process of investigation and exhibited all arrest memos, seizure memos, site plan
etc was recorded. It may be noted, that since Chintu was in the private tuition, only he
narrated the alleged incident in his evidence, all the other witnesses only arrested to his
given by Mr. Rambo on 11.01.2018. Chintu's parents denied having any altercation with
Mr. Rambo regarding fees. The fees register seized during the investigation from Mr.
Rambo's house indicates that Chintu's parents have not paid fees for the last five
months.
10. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, Mr. Rambo stated that he did
not do the alleged act, and that he had been falsely accused of the said offence on
account of the altercation between Mr. Rambo and Chintu's parents regarding his fees,
and that he had slapped Chintu as he had not done the homework given to him on
11.01.2018.
11. Thereafter realizing that on account of the presumption under Section 29 read with
Section 30 it would be impossible to prove the negative that the alleged act had never
taken place, Mr. Rambo approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32
12. On the first date of hearing i.e. 18.02.2019 notice was issued to the Union of India
and eight week time was granted for completion of pleadings. Pursuant to the
completion of pleadings on 20.04.2019 parties were heard by the Hon'ble Court and the
matter is put up for final arguments from 03.09.2019 to 05.09.2019. Further, the
ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1.
Whether Section 29 and Section 30 of POCSO, 2012 are in
violation of fundamental right of Mr. Rambo?
In this Act both the sections, section 29 and section 30 are not violation of
fundamental right of Mr. Rambo as because this case is not any ordinary
case of criminal cases where accused is not presumed to be guilt until the
guilt is proved against him which is mentioned in our law that is
“presumption of innocence” but here the case is against a child, who is just
eleven year old. Now as our law these kind of cases against children are
considered different from others criminal cases so these kind of cases are
dealt with “presumption of guilt”.
As in Article 32 Mr. Rambo approached the Supreme court of India says that
- The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. But as the
right of convicted person mentioned in Fundamental right of our Constitution
which is Article 20 says that:
From here convicted person get more right which are mentioned in Code of
Criminal procedure.
But in this case conditions are different because the victim is a child not an
adult who are capable of understanding, capacities.
Issue 2
As these test doesn’t guarantee that the person will always speak truth
that’s why these kind of test are not always admissible in court.
They also cited some cases to link the case which are as followed
“shyam charan dubey vs. state of uttar Pradesh”
In this case justice P. Basu stated that Neither the prosecution, that is,
informant, nor the accused could claim as a matter of right a direction from
the court commanding further investigation officer under section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. after a charge sheet had been filed.
The trial also relied on the privy council judgement in “Stephen v The king
(1936) wherein it has been held that it is wrong idea that the prosecution
should discharge the function both of prosecution and defence: it if does so,
confusion is very apt. to result.
PRAYER
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the
For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever
Pray.
Sd/-