Respondent V5- F

V5- F
MALAD KANDIVALI EDUCATION SOCIETY’S COLLEGE OF LAW
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DAKSHIN

PRASAD --------------------------------------------- ACCUSED

NO1
VIKRANT, ----------------------------------------------- ACCUSED NO.
2

V.

STATE OF DAKSHIN ---------------------------------------- RESPONDENT

PETITION INVOKED UNDER SECTION 299, 300 AND 375 OF

THE INDIAN PENANL CODE, 1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DAKSHIN

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
Respondent V5- F

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. no. Title Page

no.
1. LIST OF ABBRIEVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED 11

i. The guilt of Prasad and Vikrant is not in question 11

ii. Prasad’s appeal against the Capital punishment verdict by the 14

Session’s Court
iii. Vikrant’s appeal against life imprisonment by Children’s 17
Court
8. PRAYER 23

2
Respondent V5- F

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Definition

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
JJB Juvenile Justice Board
A-1 Accused-1
A-2 Accused-2
Ipso facto By the very fact
Prima facie Based on the first
impression
Sec. Section
A. Article
UOI Union Of India
Ors Others
i.e. Id es/ in other words
vs Versus
V Versus
u/s Under section
SC Supreme Court
Art Article
& And
Supra Above
Ibid Immediately
preceding
AIR All India Report
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Cr. Criminal
Ker Kerala
Crl. Criminal
UP Uttar Pradesh

3
Respondent V5- F

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

Sr.No. Title Citations Appear

on Pages
1 State Of Rajasthan vs Shera (2012) 1 SCC 602 11
Ram Vishnu Dutta
2 R. Balakrishna Pillai vs State AIR 1996 SC 901 12
Of Kerala
3 Bidyut Kumar Pal vs State of CRA. 34 of 1990 12
Bihar
4 Tanviben Pankajkumar AIR1997 SC 2193 13
Divetia v. State of Gujrat
5 State of Goa vs. Pandurang AIR 2009 SC 1066 13
Mohit
6 Sattatiya Satish Rajanna vs. (2008) 3 SCC 210 13
State of Maharashtra
7 Majendran Langeswaran vs 2013 ALL SCR 2511 14
State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
8 Union Of India & Ors vs (2001) 3 SCC 414. 15
Sunil Kumar Sarkar,
9 Bacchan v. State of Punjab. (1980) 2 SCC 684 16
10 Macchi Singh v. State of (1983) 3 SCC 470 16
Punjab,
11 Ravi vs State of Punjab and CRA, D 1128 DB of 19
Haryana 2013
12 Mohamed Huzaifa Javed CRA NO. 1153 of 2018 20
Ahmed vs The State Of
Maharashtra

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES

4
Respondent V5- F

Sr. No. Title Appears first on Page

(s)
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 6

2. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 6

3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of 6

Children) Act, 2015

WEBSITES:

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/127654/16/10_chapter%203.pdf

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-726-the-doctrine-of-rarest-of-the-rare.html

https://www.newindianexpress.com/pti-news/2017/dec/08/no-uniformity-on-rarest-of-rare-
doctrine-in-awarding-death-1722365.html

5
Respondent V5- F

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’ble Daksin HC is vested with the jurisdiction to hear the Appeals
invoked by the Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and Section 101(5) of THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
(CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015, respectively. The
provisions of this section are read as herein under:

“Section 374 of THE CrPc. Appeals from convictions. — (1) Any person
convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an

Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a
sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed
against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may
appeal to the High Court.”

“Section 101 of THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015. — (5) Any person
aggrieved by an order of the Children’s Court may file an appeal before the
High Court in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

6
 Respondent V5- F

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Prasad, 22-year-old waiter at Bhojan hotel and Vikrant, 17 year old, who
hails from a very poor family and is the sole bread earner of the family. He
works at cycle repair shop, opposite to Bhojan hotel and he is friends with
Prasad. Prithya, 25-year-old women, works at a call center in Kellore from
10 am to 7pm which is located within 300 meters of Bhojan hotel.

 Prithya’s daily transit consist of taking a public transport bus from KT bus
stop located near the Bhojan hotel. It was 8 th june, when Prasad and
Vikrant, had seen Prithya for first time and started stalking and eve teasing
her on a regular basis.
 On 3rd July Prasad approached and proposed her at the KT bus stop. She
rejected the unwelcoming advance by Prasad and slapped him in front of
bystanders, which offended Prasad deeply. In a fit of rage, Prasad
threatened Prithya of revenge and left the place with Vikrant, On the same
day Prithya filed a FIR against Prasad and Vikrant,
 On 10th July, 2018 Prithya left her workplace at 8:00 pm and boarded an
empty compartment of a local train from Kellore railway station. Vikrant,
and Prasad were seen boarding the adjacent compartment of the train.
Prithya reached Vijaynagar railway station around 9:15 pm, she purchased
drinking water bottle from a shop small near the bus stop where Prasad
again tried to convey his feelings to Prithya but she rejected him and
slapped him again.

7
 Respondent V5- F

 Angered by the rejection Prasad nabbed Prithya with the help of Vikrant,
and drag her to an abandoned and secluded tea stall where she tied her up
and stuffed her mouth with handkerchief. Subsequently Prasad raped her in
a fit of rage and cautioned Vikrant, of consequences if he ever narrated this
event to anyone. On hearing voices of strangers they both left the place in a
hurry leaving Prithya on her own. Around 11:00 pm, Vikrant, returned back
where Prithya was tied and raped her to fulfill his lust while she was in a
semi-conscious and resisting the onslaught with whatever little energy that
was left in her. To stop her from resisting Vikrant, hit her with a stone on
various part of her body after he dragged Prithya and her in a gutter near the
tea stall. On the midnight of 11 th July, some villager saw Prithya’s body and
rushed her to a hospital where she was declared dead. The post-mortem
report confirms bruises on the vaginal wall opening and her inner thighs.
 On the basis of the FIR from Kellore police station, the police arrested
Prasad and Vikrant, for further investigation. On the next day, i.e, 18 th July
both were medically examined, Prasad was presented before Session’s court
and Vikrant, before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) which made a
preliminary assessment and sent Vikrant, to Children’s court at Vijaynagar
to be tried as an adult.
 On 30th September, 2018, the Session’s court convicted Prasad guilty for the
offence of murder and rape and awarded capital punishment to him whereas
children’s court awarded life imprisonment to Vikrant, for murder and rape.
 Prasad and Vikrant, filed an appeal in the hon’ble High Court against the
verdict of the capital Punishment and life imprisonment by the Sessions
court and Children’s Court respectively on 4th October, 2018.

8
 Respondent V5- F

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. The Guilt of Prasad and Vikrant are still in question

• Is there any scope of reasonable doubt which exist in the trial?

II. Prasad’s
Court

• Should the capital punishment against Prasad for rape and murder be
upheld?

III. Vikrant’s appeal against the life imprisonment by the Children’s Court

• Should the life imprisonment against Vikrant for rape and murder be
upheld?

9
 Respondent V5- F

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. The Guilt of Prasad and Vikrant is still in question.

In the present case, Prasad and Vikrant, both had a substantive motive
i.e., Mens rea to commit the rape of Prithya, ipso facto they used to
stalk her even after the FIR filed by the victim, the abduction of her
fulfilled the second criteria i.e., Actus rea. Moreover, the
circumstantial evidence proves the guilt of A-1 and A-2 beyond the
reasonable doubt.

II. Prasad’s appeal against the capital punishment verdict of the

Session’s Court

The Accused 1 not only committed a crime u/s 376-A of the IPC but
also u/s 299 of the IPC i.e., Culpable homicide. If Prasad had not tied
Prithya, then the death and the rape of the victim by Vikrant could
have been avoided. Moreover, the section 34 of the IPC makes A-1
responsible for the murder of Prithya as well. The nature of the crime
committed by the A-1, satisfies the criteria of the “rarest of rare case”

III. Whether JJB and Children Court has rightly held Vikrant to be
tried as an adult.

It is humbly submitted that JJB and Children’s Court has rightly

evaluated the circumstances in preliminary assessment u/s 15 of the
10
 Respondent V5- F

Act. Further, Children court has rightly sentenced the Vikrant to life
imprisonment u/s 21 of the Act.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. The Guilt of Prasad and Vikrant is still in question.

There does not exists a scope of reasonable doubt in the trial of conducted
by the Session’s Court and the Children’s Court.

1. Mens Rea and Actus rea: A literal interpretation of “Mens rea” stands for
the guilty mind or the intention to commit the crime. To commit a
criminal offence, Mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element
of crime1. The counsel submits to this court that the act committed by
Prasad and Vikrant amount to fulfilling all elements of Mens rea. Prasad
and Vikrant were engaged in stalking and eve teasing of Prithya 2 and the
fact that the A-1, on 3rd July conveyed his feelings for Prithya3 to her
which the victim out rightly rejected and slapped him. The rejection by
the Prithya offended him deeply. In a fit rage he threatened Prithya of
revenge. On the same day the victim filed a FIR against the A-1 and A-
24. The FIR didn’t have any effect on the Prasad and Vikrant, they
continued to stalk her.

1
State Of Rajasthan vs Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602.
2
Para, 2nd of the factsheet.
3
Para, 3rd of the factsheet
4
Ibid

11
Respondent V5- F

2. On the unfortunate day of 10th July Prasad again tried to convince Prithya
to give in his charms but Prithya rejected him and slapped him again 5, the
rejection offended him so much that Prasad with the help of his
accomplice Vikrant abducted Prithya had a sexual intercourse with her
without her consent, In R. Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala 6, SC
upheld that “generally the mental state and the criminal act must
coincide. The criminal act may be one which may be intended by the
wrong doer. It is as well-known mere intention is not punishable except
when it is accompanied by an act or conduct of commission or omission
on the part of the accused.” If they had not heard noises from the
strangers, Prasad and Vikrant would have killed Prithya, after raping her.

3. The accused 2 came back to crime scene and raped the victim to fulfill
his lust, which Prithya resisted but the accused 2 did not like and killed
her with a stone and threw her body in a gutter near the crime scene. The
postmortem report confirmed that Prithya died cause of multiple
fractures and physical trauma7 inflicted upon her by the Vikrant.

4. In Bidyut Kumar Pal vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court8 observed that
“There must be an active and live link between the actus reus and the
mental activity which must be put to strict proof.” It is only in
situations of strict liability proof of voluntary participation in the mere
act is enough evidence. The proof of both these elements has been
sufficiently established from the above-mentioned facts
5
Para, 6th of the factsheet
6
R. Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 901
7
Para, 7th of the factsheet
8
Bidyut Kumar Pal vs State of Bihar Special Case No. 34 of 1990 (Patna HC, 04/07/2011)

12
Respondent V5- F

Circumstantial Evidence: The counsel would like to draw attention of this

court to some facts of the case, which establishes a chain of events to
prove the guilt of Prasad and Vikrant. A-1 and A-2 used to stalk the
victim on a daily basis9 due to which they were well versed with Prithya’s
daily transit, they continued to stalk her even after the victim filed a FIR,
which shows that they are repeated offenders

5. The A-1 and A-2 were seen boarding an adjacent compartment 10 to

Prithya’s which was not a mere coincidence, it was a set up by Prasad
and Vikrant, so that the A-1 and A-2can convince Prithya to give in to his
charms, but that did not happen so. The victim not only rejected Prasad
but slapped him again, Prasad was angered by this rejection, he could not
take it well, so on that very moment he decided to chastise her, how? By
destroying her dignity, pride and confidence and everything, by raping
and killing her this shows the strong motive of Prasad.

6. In “Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujrat”11. SC upheld “In a

case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumed greater importance than
in the case where direct evidences for murder are available.” In State of
Goa vs. Pandurang Mohit12e and of Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra13,
The apex court of India held that the inference of guilt can be justified
only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any

9
Supra 2
10
Para, 5 of the factsheet.
11
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, AIR1997 SC 2193.
12
State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohit, AIR 2009 SC 1066
13
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210

13
 Respondent V5- F

person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the

accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to
be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances.

7. Moreover the post-mortem reports confirms that Prithya was raped and
cause of her death was multiple injuries on her body 14 and head which
confirms that it was Vikrant who murder Prithya after raping her, as it
had been clearly pointed out in the para 6 line 12th of the factsheet, ipso
facto these circumstances form a chain of events, which permits no
conclusion other than the guilt of the A-1 and A-215. Stalking of Prithya
by Prasad and Vikrant16, the FIR against both the accused17,finally the
post-mortem report18, all these evidence lays the foundation of
circumstantial evidence without any room for reasonable doubt.
II. Prasad’s appeal against the capital punishment verdict of the Session’s
Court
8. It is humbly submitted by the counsel before this court, that the chain of
events established by prosecution in contention 1 confirms that the rape
had been committed by the A-1

9. The counsel would like to draw this hon’ble courts attention to the Section
376-A of the IPC19 defines punishment for rape which states that
“Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or sub-

14
Supra 6
15
Majendran Langeswaran vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr, 2013 ALL SCR 2511.
16
Supra 2
17
Ibid
18
Supra 6
19
Section 376-A of the IPC, 1860

14
Respondent V5- F

section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an
injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in
a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but
which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, or with
death”.

10. Section 299 of the IPC20 states that “Whoever causes death by doing an
act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.”

11. In the present case Prasad tied Prithya and stuffed her mouth with a
handkerchief21 this put her in a persistent vegetative state, which
ultimately lead to her murder by Vikrant22. If the victim wasn’t tie up, she
could have called for help or escaped. Which makes Prasad liable not
only for rape but also for the culpable homicide. Ipso facto of Section 34
IPC23, it can be concluded that it was Prasad whose act ultimately lead to
the death of Prithya

20
Section 299 of the IPC, 1860
21
Para 6th of factsheet
22
Ibid
23
Section 34 of the IPC, 1860

15
 Respondent V5- F

12. In Union Of India & Ors vs Sunil Kumar Sarkar24, Apex Court held that
“Section 34 IPC two postulates are indispensable. (1) The criminal act
(consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person,
but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act
cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have
been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons.” Thus, it
was both Prasad and Vikrant who were liable for the death and the rape
of Prithya.

13. The death penalty passed by the Session’s Court satisfy the ambit of
rarest of rare case established by the “Bacchan v. State of Punjab25” and
“Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab26”. In this case, if we look at
personality of the victim here, we find that Prithya was a helpless
woman, which is one of the criteria of the rarest of rare case, as defined
in “Macchi Singh v. State Of Punjab” 27. In applying the abovementioned
guideline, we can say that the death penalty by trial court is justifiable.

14. The counsel would like to draw this hon’ble courts attention to the Death
Penalty Report released by NLU Delhi featuring an opinion study with
60 former Supreme Court judges on the criminal justice system and the
death penalty in India. The comprehensive report was released after
consulting 60 former judges who had adjudicated 208 death penalty cases
between them at different points during the period 1975-2016. "Despite
rarest of rare doctrine in death penalty as laid down by the Supreme

24
Union Of India & Ors vs Sunil Kumar Sarkar, (2001) 3 SCC 414.
25
Bacchan v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
26
Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
27
Ibid

16
 Respondent V5- F

Court in the Bacchan Singh case, the report shows that there existed no
uniform understanding of the requirements of rarest of rare doctrine,"
senior advocate Rebecca John said during the panel discussion after the
release of the report28. Therefore, the ambit of rarest of rare case varies
from Judge to Judge, hence the counsel submits that the appeal A-1
should be dismissed.
III. Whether JJB and Children Court has rightly held Vikrant to be tried
as an adult.

15. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that JJB and Children Court
has rightly held Vikrant as adult. Under Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which defines u/s 2(13) “a child in
conflict with law” – means a child who is alleged or found to have
committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on
the date of commission of such offence. In the present case, Vikrant, who
is 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence, that is rape
and murder. Further, u/s 10(1) which lays down –“As soon as a child
alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such child
shall be placed under the of the special juvenile police unit or the
designated child welfare police officer, who shall produce the child
before the Board without any loss of time but within a period of twenty
four hours of apprehending the child excluding the time necessary for the
journey, from the place where such child was apprehended.”

28
No uniformity on rarest of rare doctrine in awarding death, The new Indian Express (8/12/2107),
available at https://www.newindianexpress.com/pti-news/2017/dec/08/no-uniformity-on-rarest-of-rare-
doctrine-in-awarding-death-1722365.html, last seen on 16/02/2020

17
 Respondent V5- F

16. In the present case after a due investigation by police 29. They arrested
Prasad and Vikrant for further investigation on the 17th July 2018. On next
day they Vikrant was presented before the Juvenile Justice Board of
Vijaynagar. The JJB made a preliminary assessment u/s 14(e-f), and 15 of
the Act30 and sent Vikrant to the children’s Court at Vijaynagar to be tried
as an adult u/s 18(3) of the Act 31. Furthermore, u/s 19(1) After the receipt
of preliminary assessment from the Board u/s 15, the Children´s Court
may decide that - there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and pass
appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and
section 21, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair
trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere;

17.At this stage, it would be relevant to read provision of section 21 of the

Act- “No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life
imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence,
either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force.”

29
Para 8th of Fact Sheet.
30
Section- 14- The Board shall take the following steps to ensure fair and speedy inquiry, namely: —(e)
inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the procedure, for trial in
summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (f) inquiry of heinous offences, —
(i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of
an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (e);
(ii) for child above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission
of an offence shall be dealt with in the manner prescribed under section 15.
Section- 15 In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or
is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his
mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence
and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance
with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 18:
31
Where the Board after preliminary assessment under section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial
of the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s
Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.

18
 Respondent V5- F

18. The following section prohibits a sentence of death order. It also prohibits
life imprisonment if not coupled with the possibility of release. It signifies
that though there can be a sentence of imprisonment for life, though there
shall always be a possibility of release. Since Vikrant has been assessed as
an adult for trial, then the provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure
Act, 1973 shall be applicable. In the present case, the Children Court has
convicted Vikrant of Murder and Rape. U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 which lays down- ‘’Punishment for murder’’- Whoever commits
murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall
also be liable to fine. U/s 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which lays
down- ‘’Whoever, commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but
which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is
not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years or with fine or with both:’’

19. Now with the prescribed punishment for Murder, is either death or life
imprisonment. However, JJA prohibits the death sentence, which only
leaves with Court is life imprisonment. A combined reading of both
suggest the intention of legislator. It suggests that life imprisonment can
be given to a child reserving a possibility of release. Therefore, the above-
mentioned intention is not followed then it would provide an unintentional
immunity from being punished for offence of murder.

19
 Respondent V5- F

20. In the case of Ravi v/s State of Haryana32, HC of Punjab and Haryana
upheld the order of JJB, Rewari that the case against appellant-Ravi the
child in conflict with the law, was found fit for trial as an adult by the
Children's Court. Therefore, Ravi was tried by the Children's Court under
Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015. Further Court upheld the order of Children’s Court, Rewari,
‘’wherein, the appellant, a juvenile in conflict with the law was charged
with and tried for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149
IPC. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months”.

21. That Vikrant assessment by Board is based on four crucial aspects as laid
down in the case of Mohamed Huzaifa Javed Ahmed vs The State of
Maharashtra33, wherein four aspects are laid down to assess whether a
child in conflict with law is a fit case for trial as an adult. The following is
the four aspects namely.

i. The child’s mental capacity to commit such offence.

ii. The child’s physical capacity to commit such offence.
iii. The child’s ability to understand the consequences of the
offence.
iv. The circumstances in which he allegedly committed the
offence.

Ravi v/s State of Haryana, CRA, D 1128 DB of 2013 (Punjab and Haryana HC, 24/05/2019)
32

33
Mohamed Huzaifa Javed Ahmed vs The State of Maharashtra, Crl APPEAL NO. 1153 of 2018 (Bombay
HC, 15/07/2019)

20
 Respondent V5- F

22. “Prasad and his friend Vikrant continued stalking and eve-teasing
Prithya frequently till the time she waited at KT bus stop 34.” “Vikrant had
challenged and dared Prasad to be bold and convey his feelings to
Prithya, thereby instigating him by questioning his manhood’’. ‘’Prasad
threatened Prithya of revenge and left the place with Vikrant’’ 35. The
repeated attempt of Eve-Teasing, Molesting were done, on being
confronted by Prithya, they threatened her in a cohort. This established the
mental capacity of Vikrant to commit such offence.

23. The child is above is 17 years but below 18 years of age. He is physically
capable of committing rape and murder. It is submitted that child was well
aware of his act and understood the consequences of the offence which
can be known from the fact that he dragged the accused in cohort with
Prasad and stuffed her mouth with a handkerchief to limit her cries. He
understood the consequences of his act as Cautioned by Prasad
“Subsequently Prasad raped her in a fit of rage and cautioned Vikrant of
consequences if he ever narrated this event to anyone else”. Which
established that both were well aware of the act which they were doing
and tried not to get caught and cautioned against telling anyone. The
circumstances in the present case are not something perverse for Vikrant
to have affected him in any way. He comes from a poor family and sole
bread earner in the family. The situation may show financial problems for
him and family, yet the offence which he did is Murder and Rape which
are heinous offence u/s 2(33) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 201536. The fact that he returned where they abandoned
34
Para 4th of Fact Sheet.
35
Supra 5
36
“heinous offences” includes the offences for which the minimum punishment

21
Respondent V5- F

Prithya and raped her to fulfil his lust. “Prithya was still alive but in a
semi-conscious state and was resisting the onslaught with whatever little
energy that was left in her. In order to control her, Vikrant hit her with
stone on various parts of the body after which she stopped resisting, and
somehow Vikrant dragged her and threw her in a gutter flowing nearby
the abandoned tea stall”.

under the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment
for seven years or more

22
 Respondent V5- F

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,

ARGUMENT ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST
HUMBLY PRAYED BY THE APPLICANTS IN THIS MATTER THAT
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

a) There does not exist any scope of reasonable doubt in the trial conducted by
the Session’s Court and the Children’s Court
b) Prasad’s appeal against the capital punishment by the session’s court to be
dismissed
c) Vikrant’s appeal against the life imprisonment by the Children’s Court to be
dismissed

And/or

Pass any other order, direction, or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit
in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

23
Respondent V5- F

Date: --/--/2020

Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondent

24