Respondent Memorial Draft

M.K.E.
S 5th NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 1
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT VIJAYNAGAR
APPEAL No. ______/2020
APPEAL No. ______/2020
In the matter of the Petitioners

approaching this Hon’ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. With regard to the exigent
circumstances of the matter, and
challenging the Criminal Law
Amendment 2013, the Petitioners’
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
1. MR. PRASAD ...ACCUSED NO. 1/ APPELLANT 1
2. MR. VIKRANT …ACCUSED NO.2/ APPELLANT 2
V.
STATE OF DAKSHIN ...RESPONDENTS
Memorial on behalf of the RESPONDENTS.
1
Memorial for the Respondents
M.K.E.S 5th NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE NOS.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………….….
STATEMENT OFJURISDICTION………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………….…..…….……………………
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…………………………………….……….……………………
ARGUMENT ADVANCE………………………………………….……………………………
ISSUES………………………..……………………………………..………………………….
PRAYER …………………………………………………………………..…………………….
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ART --- Article
SEC --- Sections of any Act
IPC --- Indian Penal Code
HON’BLE --- Honorable
SC --- Supreme Court of India
CrPC --- Criminal Procedure Code
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 Decisions and Judgments of Supreme Court & High Court
 Books :-
 Indian Penal Code – 1860
 Criminal Procedure Code – 1973
 Constitution Of India –
 Websites :-
 Manupatra – Law database on Case law, Judgments etc. at

http://www.manupatra.com/asp/home/asp.
 Indiakanoon – www.indiakanoon.org
 Cases Referred:
4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants have approached this Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. With regard to the exigent circumstances of the matter, and challenging the Criminal Law
Amendment 2013, this Appellants’ humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The State of Dakshin of Union of Indica had witnessed increasing number of crimes with respect
to eve teasing and stalking. Kellor, Vijaynagar and Mannur are cities in the State of Dakshin.
Prasad, 22-year-old male, is a waiter at Bhojan Hotel (located at GB Nagar in the city of Kellor)
while his friend Vikrant, 17-year old male, works at a cycle repair shop just opposite Bhojan
Hotel. Prasad hails from a well to do family in a city named Mannur (State of Dakshin) but fled
his parental home due to continuous bickering and humiliation of him by his parents and
presently stays 2kms from the Bhojan Hotel. Vikrant on the other hand hails from a very poor
family staying at a chawl located 3 kms from the Bhojan Hotel, barely managing his and his
family’s survival. He is the sole bread earner in the family.
Prithya, a 25-year old woman is a resident of Vijaynagar. She works at a call centre in Kellore
from 10am to 7pm every day. The Call centre, Bhojan Hotel as well as the cycle repair shop all
are located within 300 meters of each other. Prithya is a regular passenger of Dakshin express
running between Kellor to Vijaynagar. Prithya’s daily transit consisted of taking a public
transport bus from KT bus stop located near the call centre to reach Kellor railway station and
then boarding the Dakshin Express local running from Kellor station to Vijaynagar station. On
reaching Vijaynagar station, she used to board another bus originating from a bus depot adjacent
Vijaynagar station to finally reach her residence.
It was 8th June, 2018, when Prasad and Vikrant had seen Prithya for the first time on when she
had visited Bhojan Hotel with some of her friends. After Prasad first set eyes on Prithya, he felt
attracted to her and confided his feeling
to his friend Vikrant. Since they first saw Prithya at Bhojan Hotel, Prasad and his friend Vikrant
continued stalking and eve teasing Prithya frequently till the time she waited at KT bus stop.
Prithya repeatedly warned Prasad and Vikrant of grave consequences but both laughed it off as a
baseless threat. On 3rd July, 2018; Vikrant had challenged and dared Prasad to be bold and
convey his feelings to Prithya thereby instigating him by questioning his manhood. Agitated by
the continuous questioning of his manhood, Prasad approached and proposed Prithya while she
was waiting at the KT bus stop the very same day along with Vikrant. Prithya rejected the
6
unwelcoming advance by Prasad and slapped him in front of bystanders present near the KT bus
stop which offended Prasad deeply. In a fit of rage, Prasad threatened Prithya of revenge and left
the place with Vikrant. Fearing the backlash, Prithya filed a FIR against Prasad and Vikrant at
Kellor police station for threatening, stalking and eve teasing by Prasad and Vikrant.
After a week, on 10th July, 2018, Prasad and Vikrant continued to stalk Prithya while she was
leaving from her workplace. She left her workplace little late at 8:00 pm (on 10th July, 2018) and
boarded the Dakshin Express local from Kellor railway station at 8:30 pm. The compartment
which Prithya boarded was empty. Vikrant and Prasad were seen boarding the adjacent
compartment as the train had started to depart. Prithya reached Vijaynagar railway station around
9:15 pm where she purchased packaged drinking water bottle at a small shop around the
Vijaynagar bus stop where Prasad again tried to convince Prithya to give in to his charms, but
Prithya out rightly rejected him and slapped him again.
Angered by the rejection, while Prithya was a little far away from the shop and was moving
towards the bus depot located adjoining the Vijaynagar Station to board the bus to reach home,
Prasad nabbed her and compelled Vikrant to help him drag her to an abandoned and secluded tea
stall where they tied her up and stuffed her mouth with handkerchief to limit her cries.
Subsequently Prasad raped herein a fit of rage and cautioned Vikrant of consequences if he ever
narrated this event to anyone else. On hearing voices of some strangers approaching in their
direction, both Prasad and Vikrant fled the spot separately leaving Prithya at her own risk.
Around 11:00 pm, Vikrant returned back where Prithya was abandoned and raped her to fulfil his
lust. Prithya was still alive but in 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. Around 12:00 am, 11th July
2018, some nearby villager passing by noticed Prithya’s lifeless body and rushed her to a nearby
Government hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries around 12:30 am, 11th July 2018.
The body was later on taken for post – mortem as Prithya was declared dead by the concerned
hospital authorities.
7
On 15th July, 2018, the post-mortem reports confirmed bruises on the vaginal wall opening and
inner thighs. Lacerated wound with a surrounding abraded contusion on left side of forehead
above eye brow, on right side of forehead just above eyebrow and contusion of left temporalis
mused, involving its whole thickness. The left orbital margin showed a fissured fracture. The
floor of left side of anterior cranial fosse also showed fracture. There is traumatic disruption of
stem of pituitary gland and left lobe of brain showed multiple areas of haemorrhage.
After due investigation, the police found the record of FIR from the Kellor police station filed by
the victim against the suspects (Prasad and Vikrant). After which police arrested Prasad and
Vikrant for further investigations on 17th July, 2018. On the next day 18th July, 2018, both the
suspects/accused were medically examined and Prasad was presented before the Sessions Court
of Vijaynagar while Vikrant was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) of Vijaynagar.
The JJB made a preliminary assessment and sent Vikrant to Children’s Court at Vijaynagar to be
tried as an adult.
On 30th September, 2018, the Sessions Court convicted Prasad guilty for the offences of murder
and rape and awarded capital punishment to him whereas Children’s Court awarded life
th
imprisonment to Vikrant for murder and rape. On 4 October, 2018, Prasad appealed before the
Hon’ble High Court of Vijaynagar against the verdict given by Sessions Court challenging the
capital punishment awarded to him while Vikrant appealed before the Hon’ble High Court of
Vijaynagar challenging the verdict given by Children’s Court for trying him as an adult and
sentencing life imprisonment to him. The matter is to be heard together by the Hon’ble High
Court in appeal.
8
ISSUES
1) Whether death penalty violates any Fundamental rights of the constitution,

and whether it is valid to abolish death penalty in India?
2) Whether it is valid to abolish Death Penalty in India?
9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1: Whether death penalty violates any Fundamental rights of the constitution,
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Whether death penalty violates any Fundamental rights of the constitution,
CONTENTION
It is humbly submitted that Death penalty does not violate any of the articles of Constitution of
India. The crux of the whole issue is that each one of us has an inherent right to life and none of
us can divert any one of this precious right, and, if he does so, it has to be at the cost of his own
life. There are numerous legal luminaries who argue that the very fact that the death penalty is
retained in Indian criminal statutes runs counter to one's right to life. It is submitted that these
learned jurists probably over look the fact that even right to life is not an absolute right.
(1.1) Constitutionality of Capital Punishment
Constitutionality of capital punishment may be considered in respect of two aspects of the matter.
Firstly, the question is whether the capital punishment as such is unconstitutional and cannot be
awarded in any case whatsoever. In other words, the problem is whether capital punishment cannot
be awarded for any offence and by following any procedure at all. Secondly, the question is that
even though the capital punishment as such may not be unconstitutional, whether capital
punishment as provided in various sections of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional because
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code forwarding capital punishment, are violative of certain
provisions of the constitution.
These two aspects of the matter may have to be considered separately so as to have a clear vision
on the subject at issue.
11
(i) Constitutionality of capital punishment as such.

(ii) Constitutionality of the provisions of I.P.C. providing for capital punishment.
But before discussing these two issues, we discuss the cases in which constitutionality of the death
sentence was challenged.
In Jag Mohan Singh V. State of U.P., the validity of death sentence was challenged on the ground
that it was violative of Articles 19 and 21 because it did not provide any procedure. It was
contended that the procedure prescribed under Cr. P.C. was confined only to findings of guilt and
not awarding death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the choice of death sentence is done in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The judge makes the choice between capital
sentence or imprisonment of life on the basis of circumstances and facts and nature of crime
brought on record during trial. Accordingly, a five-member Bench of the court held that Capital
Punishment was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and was therefore constitutionally valid.
After the decision of Jagmohan's case the constitutional validity of death sentence was not open to
doubt.
In the case of Bachan Singh V. The State of Punjab, the S.C. by majority overruled Rajendra
Prasad's decision and has held that the provisions of death penalty under section 302, I.P.C. as an
alternative punishment for murder is not violative of Article 21. Article 21 of the constitution
recognizes the right of the state to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty in accordance
with fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law. In view of the constitutional
provision by no stretch of imagination it can be said that death penalty under section 302, I.P.C.
either per se, or because of its execution by hanging constitutes an unreasonable cruel or unusual
punishment. The death penalty for the offence of murder does not violate the basic feature of the
constitution. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India has become
party in 1979 do not abolish imposition of death penalty in all circumstances. All that it requires
is, that (1) Death penalty should not be arbitrarily inflicted, (2) It should be imposed only for most
serious crimes. Thus, the requirements of International Covenant is the same as the guarantees or
prohibitions contained in Articles 20 and 21 of our constitution. The Indian Penal Code prescribes
death penalty as an alternative punishment only for heinous crimes. Indian Penal laws are thus
entirely in accord with international commitment.
12
The Respondents would now deal with the above two points so as to have a clear vision on the
subject at issue: (i) Constitutionality of Capital Punishment (ii) Constitutionality of the provisions
of I.P.C. for providing Capital Punishment.
(i) Constitutionality of Capital Punishment: The Appellants contend that the very concept of the
Death Sentence is against the various provisions of the constitution. They argue that Art. 19 of the
Constitution grants Fundamental Rights to various human freedoms. No doubt that reasonable
restrictions may be imposed on these freedoms on various grounds in that article. The crux of these
grounds is that the restrictions on freedoms must be reasonable and must also be in public interest.
However, the state is not empowered to take away all these freedoms in to. For example, the state
may provide that the freedom of speech will be subject to the condition that no citizen shall say
anything which may be harmful to security of the state. But the state cannot order that a citizen
will not speak at all. By awarding Capital Punishment to a citizen the state takes away all his
freedoms granted under Article 19 of the constitution and does not merely impose reasonable
restrictions on them. However, the Respondents would like to contend that by awarding capital
punishment the state prevents citizens from murder by destroying their freedoms which are granted
to them under Article 19(a). The grant of certain freedoms to citizen does not mean that any citizen
may exercise them so as to destroy similar freedoms of others. The object of awarding capital
punishment is to regulate the freedom of citizens in such a way that all may not remain confined
to a few stronger citizens only. Moreover, the highest court of justice in this country has held in
more than one case that reasonable restrictions may extend even to total prohibition, if the facts
and circumstances of a particular case so demand. It follows that capital punishment as such is not
unconstitutional being violative of Article 19 of the constitution.
The Appellants further argue that Article 21 of the constitution guarantees the right to life. It
imposes a restriction on the state not to deprive a person of his right to life except according to
procedure established by law. Nothing is a good law which does not give effect to the fundamental
values and purposes of the constitution. Thus, it is held by the Appellants that the death sentence
being not in keeping with the constitutional values and purposes is violative of Article 21 of the
constitution. The Respondents contend that, Article 21 instead of denoting that capital punishment
is prohibited by the constitution denotes that even life of a citizen may be taken away by the state
13
under certain circumstances but only according to the procedure established by law. It follows that
subject to the restrictions imposed by Article 21, Capital Punishment is constitutionally
permissible. No doubt the procedure referred to in Art. 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.
However, that does not follow that even the capital punishment awarded according to the fair just
and reasonable procedure prescribed by law would be unconstitutional. Thus Capital Punishment
is contemplated by Article 21 itself and there is no question of its being unconstitutional in its
entirety.
Besides countering the arguments of Appellants pertaining to the unconstitutionality of Capital

Punishment on the ground of violation of Articles 19 and 21, the Respondents would like to
contend that Article 72, which confers power on the President to pardon, remit, or commute a
sentence of death contemplates Capital Punishment. Similarly, Article 161 of the Constitution
which confers similar powers on the Governor of a state, also contemplates Capital Punishment.
Thus Articles 21, 72 and 161 clearly indicate that the founding fathers proceeded on the assumption
that capital punishment as such is constitutional.
(1.2) Constitutionality of the provisions of I.P.C. providing for capital punishment
Under the Indian Penal Code, there are provisions which provide Capital Punishment as
alternative to the punishment of imprisonment for life. The Appellants argue that the
constitutionality of the provisions of I.P.C. providing for Capital Punishment covers only those
sections of the code where death sentence is an alternative sentence but do not cover cases when
death sentence is the only sentence provided for the offence, which they contend is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution because of the discrimination between the citizens as life
imprisonment may be awarded to some convicts while death sentence may be awarded to others.
Appellants argue that it is also violative of Article 245 of the constitution by reason of excessive
delegation of legislative powers to the judiciary. According to the Appellants, they argue that it
shows arbitrariness in the matter of choosing death sentence instead of imprisonment for life
which is awarded in other cases.
The Respondents, however, argue that alternative sentence of death as provided in sections of the
I.P.C. does not violate Article 14 or 245 of the Constitution. The Respondents would like to state
that it is not possible for the legislature to provide for the exact quantum of sentence to be awarded
in different cases. In most of the sections of the I.P.C. the courts have been given ample discretion
14
in the matter of awarding actual sentence subject to the maximum sentence laid down for a
particular offence by the legislature. The reason is obvious; the legislature can not foresee all the
facts and circumstances in which different offences may be committed. Therefore, sufficient
discretion must as of necessity be given to the courts in the matter of awarding sentence keeping
in view all the facts and circumstances of a given case. Moreover, the judges are by the very nature
of their profession trained to decide cases objectively and not subjectively. It follows that the
indecent be no question of arbitrariness in the matter of awarding sentence in a given case.
Moreover, S. 235(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provides for a separate hearing on
the question of sentence after an accused has been convicted of an offence. This further obviates
the fear of arbitrariness in the matter of providing death sentence. Besides this S. 354(3) I.P.C.
requires special reasons to be given for awarding death sentence. In the very nature of things, the
judges would be inclined to adopt the easy course of awarding imprisonment for life instead of
taking the trouble of giving special reasons for giving death sentence. Unless they find that the
brutality and gruesomeness of the accused demand that death sentence should be awarded to him.
It follows that death sentence will be awarded after due consideration and not arbitrarily.
The attitude of the Supreme Court of India towards death penalty has been considerably changed
to one of observing more lenience to the offender when his life is at peril. The court has to
overcome many fetters imposed by statutes. Thus, in Joseph Vs. State of Goa, Daman, Justice V.C.
Krishna Iyer stated that judges are bound by the statutes by the oath of their office.
ISSUE 2: Whether it is valid to abolish Death Penalty in India?
15
CONTENTION
It is humbly submitted that abolishing death penalty is not valid on the grounds of being inhumane
or violating any of the article of the Constitution. The act of the offender of violating the
Fundamental Rights of the victim if the offender does not understand the value of life of others
and harm them in an inhumane manner then why there is a need to save such offenders who are
threat to the society.
(2.1) Scope of Death Penalty
When Death penalty is awarded to the criminal there are few things that the court takes account of
these grounds are well stated.
In Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, a landmark case in the escalating debate on the question of
the compatibility of the death sentence with Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while
holding the validity of the death penalty expressed the opinion that a real and abiding concern for
the dignity of human life postulates resistance for taking a life through law's instrumentality. That
ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases, when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed. However, the Court declined to formulate any aggravating or mitigating factors as it
would fetter judicial discretion, but held that a murder "diabolically conceived and cruelly
executed" may attract extreme penalty. It is not possible, the court opined, to feed numerous
imponderable circumstances in an imperfect and undulating society.
It was, however, in Machchi Singh vs. State of Punjab5, where four men were awarded death
sentence by the Sessions court and the High Court for shooting down seventeen persons including
men, women and children within their homes at night, in five incidents. The motive was a family
feud. The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of the three of the four persons. Justice
Thakkar, speaking for the Court, was impelled to attempt a definition of the 'rarest of rare ‘case,
thus:
1. When the murder is committed in any extremely brutal manner.
2. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depratity and meanness.
3. Antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the crime.
16
4. Crimes of enormous proportion, like multiple murders.
5. Personality of victim of murder e.g. an innocent child or a helpless woman.
It is humbly submitted that Death penalty should not be abolished because if it is abolished the
maximum sentence for any crime would be Life Imprisonment, that extends to sometime 14 years
sometime 20 years and sometime for the rest of the offenders’ life. The crux of the argument here
is, if these offenders are given life imprisonment for a limited period of time then there are chances
that they may after getting released commit another crime or the same crime and get the
punishment of the same period. There would be no fear in the minds of the people and no one in
the society will fear the law and order. Therefore, deterrent theory is best to be followed to reduce
the crimes as nobody will conduct any such act that would ultimately risk his life.
“Deterrence” has been defined by Dr. Johnson as discouraging the offender by terror or naked fear
from repeating his crime and at the same time preventing others from following his path. It must,
however, be remembered that deterrence is a relative term, its seriousness depending on the
category of the offender. The stigma attached to arrest, trial, conviction and sentence may have
little effect on habitual offenders or hardened criminals but may act as a powerful deterrent to an
average law abiding citizen. Undoubtedly, of all the punishments, death penalty appears to be
strongest deterrent for their can be nothing for which a man will be willing to give away his life.
(2.2) Death Penalty is important.
1. Capital punishment acts as a deterrent. If the death sentence is removed, the feat that
comes in the mind of people committing murders will be removed. “Do we want more of
murders in our country or do we want less of them?” All sentences are awarded for security
and protection of society, so that every individual may live in peace. Capital punishment
is needed to ensure this security.
2. Elimination of the criminals. When the public peace is endangered by certain particularly
dangerous forms of crime, death penalty is the only means of eliminating the offender.
3. Possibility of repeated murders. Society must be protected from the risk of a second
offence by a criminal who is not executed and who may be released, after release may
commit murder again.
17
4. Condition in India. In countries where capital punishment has been abolished, the figure of
homicide is very low; four in a million, or even less than that.
5. Public opinion. Public opinion is substantially in favor of capital punishment, and it would
be unwise to abolish capital punishment contrary to the wishes of the majority of the
citizens.
6. Prison administration. Keeping murderers alive in the prison greatly complicates the work
of prison administration. If all convicted murderers were imprisoned, safety of the prison
staff and the general public from the dangerous prisoners would be at risk.
7. Saving of funds. Money of the citizens should not be spent on maintaining people who
cause great harm. The taxpayers should not be called upon to pay for the maintenance of
anti-social criminals for an indefinite or for a very long period.
8. Proportionate to crime. The punishment should bear a just proportion to the crime.
Therefore, capital punishment is the only fit punishment for those who have deliberately
violated the sanctity of human life.
9. More humane. Capital punishment in a painless and humane form is less cruel than
imprisonment for life.
10. No miscarriage of justice. If there is miscarriage of justice in one or two cases, the higher
courts can be approached. The whole machinery of the Government would be there to
protect the life of a person who is really innocent.
The law commission strongly felt that capital punishment acts as an effective, deterrent “which is
the most important object and even if all objects were to be kept aside, this object would by itself
furnish a rational basis for its retention”. In its concluding remarks, the commission observed that
“Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of social upbringing of its
inhabitant, to the disparity n the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of
its area, to the diversity of its population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order
in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of Capital
Punishment.”
(2.3) Offender’s Right to Live
18
A killer who is a perpetrator of other’s right to life can’t claim to have an inviolable right to live.
The focus should be on the mischief flowing from what the criminal has done to his victim and
those near and dear to him and greater attention be paid to victimology and therefore to the
retributive aspect of punishment. The Appellants needs to shift their focus from criminal to
victim, as a killer is a proven enemy of society. The demand of abolition of death penalty is a
demand in wrong direction and represents a trend reversal when society is considering the issue
whether mercy killing be accepted or not. Death penalty to a killer is a sort of mercy to an ailing
society, which wants to get rid of its enemy. The process of reformation of criminals with an
unascertained record would entail a great risk as a sizable number of criminals instead of being
reformed may be encouraged to commit offences after offences and become a serious and
horrendous hazard to the society. The question, therefore, is--should the country take the risk of
innocent lives being lost at the hands of criminals committing heinous crimes in the holy hope or
wishful thinking that one day or the other, a criminal, however dangerous or callous he may be,
will reform himself, Valmikis are not born every day and to expect that our present generation,
with the prevailing social and economic environment, would produce Valmikis day after day is
to hope for the impossible.
Only penalty of death will provide maximum deterrence. No other punishment deters men so
effectually from committing crimes, as the punishment of death. Death is death; its terrors cannot
be described more forcibly. Prima Facie, the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as
a deterrent to normal human behaviour than any other form of punishment, though it is difficult
to unravel the innermost recesses of the minds of potential murderers. The truth is that some
crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer
deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not. If accepted that death penalty has no
deterrent effect, then it will be illogical and irrational to ask for continuances of a scheme of
penalties for lesser offences against society.
The Court in Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab observed;
“The question whether or not death penalty serves any penological purpose is a difficult, complex
and intricate issue. It has been evoked the strong divergent dues notwithstanding the view of
abolitionists to the contrary, a very large segment of people, the world over, including sociologist,
19
jurist, judges and administrators still firmly believe in the worth and necessity of capital
punishment for the protection of society”.
20
PRAYER
“In the light of issues arguments advanced and authorities cited. It is humbly prayed before this
Hon’ble court that it may be pleased to:
Respectfully Submitted
(Counsel on behalf of the

Respondent)
21

Respondent Memorial Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Respondent Memorial Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M.K.E.

S 5th NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

APPEAL No. ______/2020

APPEAL No. ______/2020

In the matter of the Petitioners

1. MR. PRASAD ...ACCUSED NO. 1/ APPELLANT 1

2. MR. VIKRANT …ACCUSED NO.2/ APPELLANT 2

STATE OF DAKSHIN ...RESPONDENTS

Memorial on behalf of the RESPONDENTS.

CONTENTS PAGE NOS.

ART --- Article

SEC --- Sections of any Act

IPC --- Indian Penal Code

HON’BLE --- Honorable

SC --- Supreme Court of India

CrPC --- Criminal Procedure Code

 Decisions and Judgments of Supreme Court & High Court

 Indian Penal Code – 1860

 Criminal Procedure Code – 1973

 Manupatra – Law database on Case law, Judgments etc. at

1) Whether death penalty violates any Fundamental rights of the constitution,

2) Whether it is valid to abolish Death Penalty in India?

(1.1) Constitutionality of Capital Punishment

(i) Constitutionality of capital punishment as such.

Besides countering the arguments of Appellants pertaining to the unconstitutionality of Capital

(1.2) Constitutionality of the provisions of I.P.C. providing for capital punishment

ISSUE 2: Whether it is valid to abolish Death Penalty in India?

(2.1) Scope of Death Penalty

1. When the murder is committed in any extremely brutal manner.

3. Antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of the crime.

4. Crimes of enormous proportion, like multiple murders.

5. Personality of victim of murder e.g. an innocent child or a helpless woman.

(2.2) Death Penalty is important.

(2.3) Offender’s Right to Live

The Court in Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab observed;

(Counsel on behalf of the

You might also like