STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this matter under Section 177 read with Section 209 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

Section 177:

‘177-Ordinary place of inquiry and trial’

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

Read with 209:

‘209-Commitment of a case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it’

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-

• commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case
may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code
relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made.

• subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

• send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to be produced in evidence;

• notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

• Eila, a 17-year-old girl is a resident of Sant Vihar, Jagdishpur District. Eila’s family
constitutes of father, mother, brother and grandmother. Her grandmother Sheila is a
staunch believer of Sant Maharaj Guru ji alias Satyavrat Kumar and out of courtesy
and in order to not hurt her grandmother’s belief, she also follows Guru ji but
unwillingly.

• Ricky, an 18-year-old boy is a resident of Sabzi and Rashan Market lane from where
Eila and her brother, Prem used to walk to school daily. The boy holds a soft corner
for Eila and wants to woo her. Kaant, who has the shop in the same market lane
notices Ricky’s teenage liking for Eila and decides to help him in wooing her.

• Ricky, owing to trust shows all the letters to Kaant which Eila had given to him.
Kaant, being a loyal disciple of Guruji shows and gives all the letters to Guru ji in
which Eila had described everything related to her and the hatred she held for Guru ji.

• When Eila and her family visit Guru ji’s Darbar, Guruji apprehend Eila to tell about
her love affair to her family. When Eila’s grandmother discussed about her concern
towards Eila’s bright future, Guruji taking advantage of the situation tells to perform
a shudhi-pooja on the very same day.

• In the name of Shudhi-pooja, Eila is given saffron clothes to wear, given intoxicated
food to eat and is made to lie down next to Guruji in a dimly lighted room with other
servants. She was made to drink “Holy Water” which was intoxicated. After
consuming the water, she felt drowsy and partially unconscious.
 • Few servants are asked to leave the room but still there is Kaant along with Guruji.
Kaant holds her head back when she tries to get up when she starts feeling a lot of
pain between her legs and abdomen. She is then made to go to her parents when on
noticing blood stains, she informs her mother and the family goes to Sant Vihar
hospital, where medical practitioner Dr. Pradeep Gupta confirms it as rape.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

CHARGE 1:
Satyavrat Kumar alias Guru ji and Kaant has been charged with Section 376(1) of the Indian
Penal Code,1860.

CHARGE 2:
Satyavrat Kumar alias Guru ji and Kaant has been charged with Section 120B read with Sections
34 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

CHARGE 3:
Satyavrat kumar alias Guru ji and Kaant has been charged with Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR AND KAANT ARE GUILTY OF

RAPE?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused, Satyavrat Kumar and Kaant
are not guilty of rape as these are false allegations made by Eila, the claimed victim on 23rd
August, 2018. The fact that eila has preconceived thought for guruji that he is a fraud and a
shame in the name of relegion and so she wanted to lift the veil of faith from the eyes of people.
from nowhere it can be prove that the accuseds have committed an offence of rape because of
unavailability of direct evidences.while the time of occurrence of the offence mentioned in
medical report the accusseds were with the family of eila.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL

INTIMIDATION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused, Satyavrat Kumar is not guily
of criminal intimidation . The accused has impliedly committed the offence. And the accused
while committing the said offence has fulfilled all the conditions and elements of Section 503 of
IPC.
 ISSUE 3

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR AND KAANT ARE GUILTY OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND ABETMENT OF CRIIMINAL
CONSPIRACY?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused, Satyavrat Kumar and Kaant
are guilty of criminal conspiracy and abetment of criminal conspiracy with full intent as both of
them had conspired for Eila’s rape and impliedly abetted Ricky to be a part of this conspiracy.
And the accused have committed the said offence and have fulfilled all the conditions and
elements of Section 120A and 107 which is to be read with Section 34 of IPC.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR AND KAANT ARE GUILTY OF

RAPE?
• A main is said to commit “RAPE” who, except in the case hereinafter expected, has
sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances as mentioned in Section 375 of
IPC, 1860. Here in this case, the first circumstances i.e., against the will of the female
who here is Eila, rape was committed. Another criteria which has to fulfilled to constitute
the crime of rape is that there should be sexual intercourse between a male and a female
and here there was forced sexual intercourse between Eila and Guruji. It has been proved
by the medical examination report.

• It is the threat of use of a force or the use of force, by the rapist that ‘compels’ the victim
to ‘submit’ to this threat or force that constitutes the actus reus of rape. In the present
case, the victim wanted to go back but there was use of force by the accused which made
her submit to the situation.

• To constitute the offence of rape it, is not necessary that these should be complete
penetration of the penis with emission of semen and the rupture of hymen. Partial
 penetration of the penis within the labia majora or valua, with or without the emission of
semen, or even n attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of law. It is
therefore, quite possible to commit, the offence of rape without producing any injury to
the genitalia or leaving any seminal stains. Though there no seminal stains found, it
doesn’t mean that rape wasn’t committed.

• The ingredients that are essential for proving a charge of rape are the accomplishment of
the act against her will or without her consent. The issue that the assailant had used force
and victim offered resistance could be instances of proof that the act was against her will
or without consent. As a measure of normal human conduct efforts were made by Eila to
resist but due to the intoxication and criminal force used by Kaant and other servants, she
couldn’t overpower the successful commission of the offence.

• Penetration of any type such as penis/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration,

penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/ anal penetration and object/ vaginal
penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence.

• The chemical analysis of the salwar of victim and the place where the accused committed
rape showed presence of blood stains and foreign materials. The pubic hair and
fingernails of the victim also had blood stains according to the medical examination
report. The position of tears was present on both sides which proven forceful penetration,
which is also confirmed by the medical examination report.

• There was no medical examination of the accused and till now the evidences must have
been cleared away. Also, the delay in medical examination of the accused is because of
the fact that they used the excuse of medical emergency and made embellishment and
modifications in the evidences, majorly the medical evidences.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL

INTIMIDATION?
2.1In criminal intimidation, a person is threatened to do, or to abstain from doing something
which he was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do. In the peresnt case , Eila’s family lodged an F.I.R which was legal act on the
family’s part but apprehension was given by the neighbours and followers of Sant Maharaj that
they should take down the F.I.R or it won’t be good for the family.

2.2 It is not necessary that the injury should be one to be inflicted by the offender; it is sufficient
if he can cause it is to be inflicted by another and the infliction of it could be avoided by some
act or omission that the person threatening desires i.e., all the powers lie in the hand of the
instigator. In this case, Guruji himself did not apprehend Eila’s family but through, his staunch
followers and decibels. He possessed all the power to stop and instigate all the actions.

2.3Where the threats are given to the complaint not with an intention to alarm him, but with a
view to deter him from interfering with what the accused had done or believes it to be his
exclusive right in also criminal intimidation. In this case, Guruji’s intention was also to alarm
Eila’s family as well as deter them from lodging an F.I..R against him, proves his mens rea for
criminal intimidation .

2.4Apart from the criminal intimidation given impliedly but Guruji through his disciples and
followers, Guruji intimidated/apprehended Eila by showing her the letters and apprehending her
that he will show all these letters to the family who would disapprove her relationship. Eila under
this fear does not speak anything and followed what Guruji said.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER SATYAVRAT KUMAR AND KAANT ARE GUILTY OF

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND ABETMENT OF CRIIMINAL
CONSPIRACY?
3.1Conspiracy may be defined as an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act or
to a lawful act by unlawful means, and the parties to such a conspiracy are liable to indictment.
In Indian Law, in case of conspiracy other than a conspiracy to commit an offence, some overt
act is necessary to bring the conspiracy within the purview of section 120A of The Indian Penal
Code,1860.
3.2 The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The
agreement may be express and the offence continue to be committed so long as the combination
persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance
or by abandonment or frustration however it may be. In the present case, the agreement given by
Ricky to Kaant and by both of them to Guruji is implied. Ricky consents to Kaant when he
agrees to exchange letters of Eila with Kaant and Kaant impliedly agrees Guruji as he is his
staunch disciple and also passes all the information to Guruji.

3.3 Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent also does not
constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with person having same
intention. Therefore, in this case, Ricky will not be liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy
as he did not have the same intention as Kaant and Gruji had. But acts subsequent to the
achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was part of the
conspiracy. Likewise, in this case, Ricky will also be held liable for the offence of criminal
conspiracy as the subsequent act i.e., rape of Eila is an unlawful act and the chain of events is
connected clearly show that Ricky’s giving letters of Eila to Kaant led to this subsequent act.

3.4 Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objective have to be inferred from the
circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In this case, the existence of conspiracy between
Guruji, Kaant and Ricky can be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of all three.