TEAM CODE – RCL – 18

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT XYZ,

BHOPAL

ANANYA....……………………………………………………………………..…PETITONER

VS.

SUMANT.…..…………………………………………………………………...….RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ii

List of Abbreviations iv

Index of Authorities v

Table of Cases v

Books vi

Websites vii

Statutes vii

Statement of Jurisdiction

viii

Statement Of Charges ix

Statement of Facts x

Summary of Pleading xii

Body Of Pleading
1

Issue-I 1-3

Issue-II 3-5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITONER
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issue –III 6-8

Issue – IV 9-10

Prayer xiv

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE

PETITONER
 7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2017 Iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. Edition
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
n. Foot Note no.
p. Page No.
Yrs Years
& And
i.e That is
Pic. Pictures
Rs Rupees
Sec. Section
v. Versus
 7TH RATYA LAW COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 v

INDEX Of AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Tamil Nadu v Suhash Katti

2. Manish Kathuria v Ritu Kohli

3. Kalandi Charan Leneka v State of Odisha

 vi

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS:

1. K.D Gaur, Criminal Law- Cases and Material

2. George P. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law

3. Bare Act- Information Technology Act

4. Bare Act- Code of Criminal Procedure

5. Harish Chander, Cyber Law and IT Protection

6. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code (2013)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 vii
7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

W
E
B
S
I
T
E
S:

1.
h
tt
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.f
i
n
d
la
w
.c
o
m
 2. http://www.judis.nic.in

3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx

4. http://www.scconline.com

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com

STATUTES:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

777

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 viii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Ho
n’bl
e
Co
urt
has
juri
sdic
tion
to
try
the
inst
ant
mat
ter
und
er
Sec
tion
177
rea
d
wit
h

Sec
tion
209
of
the
Co
de
of
Cri
min
al
Pro
ced
ure,
197
3.
777

Section 177: Wh

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- eth

er
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
Su
whose local jurisdiction it was committed. ma
nt
Read with Section 209:
is
‘ 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively guil

by it- When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears ty
for
or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence
me
is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall- nta
lly
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
har
assi
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to ng
the
custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
girl

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if due
to
any, which are to be produced in evidence;
cyb
er
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of
Session.’ stal
kin
g
un
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER der
the
sect

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 ix ion

354
STATEMENT OF CARGE
(D)
of
IP
STATE MENT OF CHARGE
C
ISSUE I
777

ISSUE II

Whether act of Sumant in the bar are Battery under the section 350 of IPC and
Criminal Intimidation under the section 503 of IPC.

ISSUE III

Whether the Sumant is guilty for Cyber Defamation under the section 499 of IPC
and punishable under the section 500 of IPC.

ISSUE IV

Whether Sumant is liable to pay cost of her medical expenditure

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
x

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ananya, a 17.5 yrs old student changed her Facebook profile status ‘Single’. She and
Sumant has been together for nearly 2 year, but his possessive nature and constant
harassing had worn her down.

2. As Sumant had insisted on reading all her SMS’s & emails and telling her to choose him
or her friends which compel her to shift to Tina’s flat.

3. After few days, through messages (56), emails Sumant tried to plead, beg, cajole and at
last turned into threatening messages. He also started calling her 5-10 times which
compel her to change her SIM and got a new number.

4. At Blue Ice Bar, She saw Sumant and tried to ignore him & went to washroom, where
She felt an arm around her neck, She was dragged across the floor, spun around and
pinned to wall by her throat and hear a threatning voice.
“YOU’RE MINE, “DON’T FORGET THAT, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE MINE. I
WILL ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU’LL NEVER GET RID
OF ME.”

5. The Final incident took place on Monday morning, in the class when she saw nude
photos of her, but she was’nt her and something was written i.e “CALL FOR A GOOD
TIME, ANANYA AT 0721234567 OR COME OVER TO 9 GROVER ROAD,
BHOPAL
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 xi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. She cried and crumbled up. Her friend told her that Sumant may have photoshopped the
picture and put it up using a fake Facebook Profile.

7. Without any hasitation, they went to Cyber Cell and called the Police Station and
explained everything. Meanwhile, Ananya went in a depression and had to be
hospitalized for atleast fifteen days and had to spend Rs 1 lakh on medicines and
hospital charges.

8. Finally, after a month Sumant was caught and now Ananya secured her account,
changed her number and moved into a flat of her own.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 xii

SUMMARY OF
PLEADING

SUMMARY OF PLEADING

ISSUE I
Whether Sumant is guilty for mentally harassing the girl due to cyber stalking under the
section 354(D) of IPC.

The action of Respondent is totally in accordance with the section 354(d) of IPC. Respondent
was in relation with Petitioner since last 2 years & the Petitioner was being harassed
consistently. Even when the Petitioner left Respondent & started living with her friend, the
Respondent used to text threatening messages, mails & then started calling which comes under
354(d) of IPC & hence responsible.

ISSUEII
Whether act of Sumant in the bar are Battery under the section 350 of IPC and Criminal
Intimidation under the section 503 of IPC.

The action of Respondent is totally accordance with the section 350 & 503 of IPC i.e the
Battery and Criminal Intimidation. The Respondent never use to came in that Bar & all of a
sudden came in the washroom and forcefully dragged across the floor, spun around and pinned
to the wall by her throat and also threatened the Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

wwwr
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 1

BODY OF PLEADING

ISSUE III

Whether the Sumant is guilty for Cyber Defamation under the section 499 of IPC and
punishable under the section 500 of IPC.

The action of Respondent is totally accordance with the section 499 of IPC i.e the Cyber
Defamation. The Respondent uploaded the Nude Picture of the Petitioner by using
Photoshopped to defame her and also wrote few defaming lines across the bottom of the picture
which also harmed the reputation of the Petitioner

ISSUE IV

Whether Sumant is liable to pay cost of her medical expenditure?

The Respondent is responsible for all the incidence which happened with the Petitioner which
lead to severe depression and had to be hospitalized for atleast fifteen days & had to spend Rs
1 Lakh on Medicines and Hospital charges.MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

wwwr
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

wwwr
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 1

BODY OF PLEADING

BODY OF PLEADING

ISSUE I

Whether Sumant is guilty for mentally harassing the girl due to cyber stalking under the
section 354(D) of IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Court that action of the respondent is totally in
accordance with the Art. 354(d)1 of the IPC. Since Sumant and the petitioner were in relationship
for last two years but because of the possessive nature by the side of the respondent, petitioner
paused and changed the relationship status to ‘single’. 2 The constant harassing and possessive
nature by Sumant towards petitioner worn her down. Any man who follows a woman and
contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a
clear indication of disinterest by such woman’ can be tried for stalking.3 Sending lewd messages
via mobiles will also come under stalking. In the case of online stalking, the woman has to show
that the act results in a reasonable fear of violence or a serious alarm or mental distress, and the
monitoring must be of private contents only4. In the present case the messages, emails and the
phone calls too distressed the petitioner because 3 or 4 message a day, some pages and pages
long, begging, pleading, cajoling, threatening and aggressive in turn.5 Stalking can be

1
* Any man who—
- follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite
a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
-monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
commit the offence of stalking;
* Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second
or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
2
Moot Problem para 2
3
Sec 354(d) of IPC
4
Articles in T.O.I
5
Moot Problem para 2

wwwr
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 2

BODY OF PLEADING

perpetrated by the stalker or by someone acting on her/his behalf. Stalking can take the
form of verbal threats or threats conveyed by the stalker's conduct, threatening mail,
property damage, surveillance of the victim, or by following the victim. 6 People
characterized as stalkers may be accused of having a mistaken belief that another person
loves them, or that they need rescuing. Stalking can sometimes consist of an
accumulation of a series of actions which in themselves can be legal, such as calling on
the phone, sending gifts, or sending emails.7
In the present case the actions performed by Sumant harassed her upto such extent that
the physical appearance got changed and the girl full of life turned into a pale and
sunken-eyed girl. After their breakup after two years of the relationship, petitioner left
Sumant and moved to his friend’s flat Tina, but the respondent was unaware where
Ananya was living or with whom she was living. The attitude of Sumant shocked the
petitioner, when she logged onto her Facebook account, the first thing she saw was 56
messages, all of Sumant – some were pleading, others threatening, email account was
also similar - 3 or 4 messages a day, some pages long, begging, pleading, cajoling and
aggressive in turn. Then the phone calls started. At first they came once or twice a day,
and then 5 or 10 times a day, sometimes at 2 in the morning. Eventually the petitioner has
to change his SIM and got a new number .The petitioner even removed him as a friend
from all her social media account for good measures, and blocked his emails.

When the petitioner was in the relationship with the respondent, Sumant always used to
check her messages, mails which directly lead to the violation of right to privacy and
always complained her whenever she went out with their friend and always tells him to
choose him or her friends.

6
The Attorney General of Texas
7
Stalking-Wikipedia

wwwr
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
3

BODY OF PLEADING

Hence, the respondent is guilty for mentally harassing the petitioner due to cyber stalking.

ISSUE II

Whether act of Sumant in the bar are Battery under the section 350 of IPC & Criminal
Intimidation under the section 503 of IPC.

A harmful, or an offensive, touching of the plaintiff's person, caused directly or indirectly by a

voluntary act of the defendant with an intention to inflict a harmful or an offensive touching, is a
battery.8 A touching of another's person may be both offensive and harmful, or it may be merely
offensive and not inflict substantial harm.9 A touching which is not harmful but which is
offensive to a normal or reasonable person is a battery, and it subjects the actor to liability if the
touching is not consented to or privileged. In this type of battery, it is the insult or offensiveness
of the touching that is important and not damage in fact. An offensive touching may be inflicted
in many ways.10 Thus, forcibly pushing the plaintiff's hat back on his head, in order to see his
face and identify him, was held to be a battery.11 A particular touching might not be offensive to
a reasonable person, but if it is inflicted on a very sensitive person, with knowledge of his
peculiar sensitiveness, it should be a battery. 12 A touching may not be regarded as offensive at
the time it is inflicted, due to a mistake or to false representations; if, however, the person upon
whom it is inflicted later regards it as offensive, upon discovering the true situation, and if the
touching really offends a normal sense of personal dignity, it is a battery

8
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison
9
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison
10
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison
11
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison
12
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison

wwwr
 7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 4

BODY OF PLEADING

A battery may consist of a harmful touching of the plaintiff's person, caused by the defendant
with an intent to inflict a harmful or an offensive touching either of the plaintiff's person or that
of a third person. While a touching in anger would be a sufficient act to constitute a battery, it is
not necessary that the touching should be in anger.13 Any intentional touching of or impact with
the plaintiff's person, caused or committed by the defendant, and offensive to a reasonable sense
of personal dignity, is an offensive touching in the law of battery; the fact that the act of the
defendant is done as a practical joke" or without malice or personal hostility towards the
plaintiff, is no defense.

An act done by one person which causes, and is intended to cause, to another an apprehension of
an immediate and harmful or offensive touching or contact with his person is an assault. An
assault is an attempt or offer with violence to do a corporal hurt to another, as if one lift up his
cane or fist at another in a threatening manner, or strike at him with a stick, his fist, or any other
weapon, within striking distance, but miss him. A reckless act which is likely to produce the
personal injury which it actually causes has been held to constitute an assault.

In the present case, after moving out from Sumant’s flat and started living with her friend Tina,
Ananya felt that her life returning to her finally when she broke all the links from Sumant(in
social media and outside social media too) she felt more confident, she was making friends
online and offline, she even met couple of guys online. When Ananya finally agreed to move out
with her friends in the bar, she saw Sumant who never comes in that bar. When she was in the
washroom, she felt an arm around her neck and she was dragged across the floor, spun around
and pinned into the wall by her throat. Such physical coercion has been applied by Sumant on
Ananya which leads to an act of battery and makes Sumant liable under sec. 350 of IPC14 and

7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 5

13
Notre Dame Law Review- vol.17 Issue 1(Tort ,Assault and Battery) by W. D. Rollison
14
Sec. 350 of IPC- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use
of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal
force to that other.

wwwr
 BODY OF PLEADING

under the section 354 of IPC15. Then after Ananya was threatened by the respondent, then the
respondent used the following lines that threatened her freedom and privacy

“YOU’RE MINE”, said Sumant “DON’T FORGET THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS BE MINE. I
WILL ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU’LL NEVER GET RID OF ME”. 16

Sumant’s threat to Ananya was clearly an action of Criminal Intimidation under the section 503
of IPC17 and under the section 507 of IPC18.

Hence, Sumant is responsible for Battery and Outraging the Modesty of Ananya

7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 6

15
 Sec. 354 of IPC-Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or
uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her
modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.
16
Moot Court Problem.
17
Sec.503 of IPC—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person
or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled
to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat
to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
18
Sec.507 of IPC— Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or
having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment
provided for the offence by the last preceding section.-

wwwr
 BODY OF PLEADING

ISSUE III

Whether the Sumant is guilty for Cyber Defamation under the section 499 of IPC and
punishable under the section 500 of IPC.

  Cyber stalking is largely misunderstood, many incorrectly assume that cyber stalking involves
an element of sexual obsession; however, the research findings are not conclusive. Proposed that
stalking is a criminal offense motivated by interpersonal hostility and aggressive behaviors
stemming from power and control issues rather than material gain or sexual obsession. Cyber
because the Internet provides a safe haven in which an offender can theoretically hide and
conceal one’s identity behind a veil of anonymity.19

Essential elements of cyber defamation- The person, his reputation and the harm with the
necessary mens rea.

The intention of the person making the defamatory statement must be to lower the reputation of
the person against whom the statement has been made in the eyes of the general public. Cyber
Defamation is publishing of defamatory material against another person with the help of
computers or internet. If someone publishes some defamatory statement about some other person
on a website or send emails containing defamatory material to other persons with the intention to
defame the other person about whom the statement has been made would amount to cyber
defamation.

After the incident that took place at the bar, Ananya was nearly in the state of trauma. On the
Monday morning when she walked in the class to find her friend Tina, everyone in the class was
glaring at her in disbelief of shock. As one of the friend turned the laptop screen towards the
whole class which displayed the nude pictures of Ananya and along with the nude picture there

7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 7

19
International Journal of Cyber Criminology -Michael L. Pittaro

wwwr
 BODY OF PLEADING

was a defamatory statement, stating, “CALL ME FOR GOOD TIME, ANANYA AT

0721234567 OR COME OVER TO 9, GROVER ROAD, BHOPAL.”20

In the case State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti related to posting of obscene, defamatory and
annoying message about a divorcee woman in the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also
forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-mail account opened by
him in the name of the victim. The posting of the message resulted in annoying phone calls to the
lady in the belief that she was soliciting. At the end the court gave the judgment that “The
accused is found guilty of offences under the section 469, 509 of IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000 and
the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469
IPC”21

In the present case, Sumant is responsible of defaming under the section 499 of IPC by
publishing the nude photos of Ananya. The act which Sumant did was clear case of intending to
insult the modesty of a woman under the section 509 of IPC and also harmed the reputation of
Ananya under sec 469 of IPC .By publishing the nude photos of Ananya, Sumant breached the
confidentiality and privacy of a women under IT Act 72.

As in this case the fake nude photos of the girl was published to defame the dignity of the girl.
Hence Sumant is liable for defaming the dignity of the petitioner for altering the photos and
making them public. As the petitioner clearly stated that “he must have photoshopped that

20
Moot Court Problem, page2
21
State of Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti, 4680 of 2004 Criminal Complaint

wwwr
picture and put it up using a fake facebook profile. 22Due to this act of sumant he has been made
accused under the 469 of IPC23, 499 of IPC24, 509 of IPC25, sec. 72 of IT act, 200826

7 TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 8

STATEMENT OF CARGE

In India’s first case of cyberstalking, Manish Kathuria v. Ritu Kohli. In the case, Manish
Kathuria was arrested by the New Delhi Police.  He was stalking an Indian lady, Ms Ritu Kohli
by illegally chatting on the Web site MIRC using her name. He used obscene and obnoxious
language, and distributed her residence telephone number, inviting people to chat with her on the
phone. As a result of which, Ritu kept getting obscene calls from everywhere, and people
promptly talked dirty with her. In a state of shock, she called the Delhi police and reported the
matter. For once, the police department did not waste time swinging into action, traced the
culprit and slamed a case under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code for outraging the modesty
of Ritu Kohli27.

In another case Kelandi Charan Leneka v. State of Odisha28, Respondent be released on bail of
Rs 50,000 on some conditions-

22
Moot Court Problem, page3
23
Sec.469 of IPC—Whoever commits forgery, 1[intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm
the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
24
Sec.499 of IPC-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to
defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his
family or other near relatives.
25
Sec.509 of IPC—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall
be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
26
Sec.72 of IT ACT,2008- Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any
person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has
secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material
without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence,
information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
27
Manish Kathuria v. Ritu Kohli-
28
Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha, BLAPL No. 7596 of 2016.

wwwr
*He would appear before the Investigated Officer on every Sunday for the purpose of further
Investigation, If any, after submission of final form.

*He would not commit any offence through electronic form while on Bail.

*He would not induced the victim directly or indirectly through any manner.

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 9

BODY OF PLEADING

*He would also not visit the town of victim.

Similarly in the present case, sumant also used obscene and obnoxious language and disturbed
her on the telephone and through emails and hence he should be made liable under section 509 of
IPC.

Hence, Sumant is responsible for Defaming Ananya.

wwwr
 7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 9

BODY OF PLEADING

ISSUE IV

Whether Sumant is liable to pay cost of her medical expenditure.

Firstly, Sumant is liable under the section 354(d) of the IPC states Cyber Stalking, because when
the Petitioner left the Respondent without informing him, the threatening mails, messages some
were pleading, threating, cajoling etc. Then, the respondent started calling the Petitioner once or
twice a day, then he started calling 4 to 5 times a day which forced Ananya to change her phone
SIM which ultimately leads to Cyber Stalking.

Secondly, he was also liable for battery under section 352 of the IPC 29 which he did in the bar by
focefully dragging and spinning onto the wall and punishable under 506 of IPC. After the bar
incidence, Ananya was so depressed and mentally harassed that, she began looking over her
shoulder whenever she went. She was scared about another Encounter with Sumant. She was so
depressed that she once or twice heared strange noises in the garden, but she put it down to her
fragile state of mind. She kept thinking the glimpses of Sumant everywhere. She even began
jumping at shadows, loses her weight and soon she was looking as pale, sunken eyes and
frightened.

29
Sec.352 of IPC.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden
provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

wwwr
 Thirdly, Sumant was liable under the section 500 of the IPC 30. He defamed Ananya by
publishing nude photos of her, which actually was not her body, but only the face was being
edited and the photo was being Photoshopped by Sumant. The respondent even mention some
anonymous lines like- “CALL FOR A GOOD TIME, ANANYA AT 0721234567 OR COME
OVER TO 9 GROVER ROAD, BHOPAL” which directly harmed the reputation of Ananya.

7TH RAYAT COLLEGE OF LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017 10

BODY OF PLEADING

These were the reasons through which Ananya went into severe depression and had be
hospitalized for atleast fifteen days and had to spend 1 lakh rupees on medicines and hospital
charges.

Hence , Sumant should pay the medical cost of Ananya which she spend on her medicines and
hospital charges because she was in depression because of Sumant only and the Respondent is
also responsible for defaming her, mentally harassing her and also outraged the modesty of the
Petitioner .

30
Sec.500 of IPC— Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

wwwr
 PRAYER

Wherefore, In light of the issue raised, body of pleading and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court of XYZ, Bhopal that it may be pleased
to hold, adjuged and declare:

That Sumant is guilty for mentally harassing the girl due to cyber stalking under section 354(d)
of IPC,

That Sumant is liable for his act in the bar, which constitute Battery under the section 350 of
IPC and Criminal Intimidation under section 503 of IPC & is punishable under law,

That the Sumant is guilty for cyber defamation under the section 499 of IPC and punishable
under section 500 of IPC,

That Sumant is liable to pay cost of her medical expenditure.

and

Pass any such order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good
consciences.

All of which most respectfully submitted.

(Counsel of Petitioner)

wwwr
 Written submissions on behalf of Petitioner.

RCL-18

wwwr