1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………….1
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………….2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………..
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………….
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………….
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………
1. Whether the actions and omissions of the police of Unkar
Pradesh resulted in the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
of Indica in as much as Vivek Das as killed and his life was away
without the due procedure established by
law……………………………………………………….
1.1.Whether due process of law was
followed?.....................................................
1.2.Whether the procedures established by law must be
reasonable, fair and just?..........
1.2.1.Concept of sovereign immunity is no exception to Art.
21?...........................
1.2.2.Audi alterum partem…………………
1.2.3.Pressumptions of innocence till proven
guilty……………………………………………..
2. Whether the Police of Unkar Pradesh was justified in killing the
dreaded criminal who had brazenly killed scores of policemen
along ith his henchmen and the action of police is justified in
terms of self defence ( Chapter IV : General Exceptions, Section
96-106 )of Indica Penal Code. Also, whether the police have
followed the principle as provided under Cr.P.C i.e to produce
the accused before the concerned court and various other
provisions of Cr.C.P?.........................................................
2.1.Whether the respondents can claim protection under private
defence?....................

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 3

2.1.1.Whether the respondents acted in good

faith?..............................................
2.1.2.Whether the force was proportional to the
apprehension?.......................................
2.2.Whether the threat to the defendant are immediate and
real?......................................
2.3.Whether the procedures laid out in Cr.P.C was
followed?................................................
2.4.Pressumsions…………………………………
PRAYER……………………………………………….

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 4

& And

/ Or

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cr. Criminal

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code

DSP Deputy Superintendent of Police

EEVFAM Extra Judicial Execution Victim

Families Association
Hon’ble Honorable

i.e That is

IPC Indian Penal Code

NHRC National Human Rights Commission

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Sec. Section

SHO Station House Officer

SI Sub- Inspector

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 5

SO Station Officer

SP Superintendent of Police

SPT Special Police Team

u/s Under section

UDHR United Nations Declarations on Human

Rights
UOI Union Of India

V/Vs. Verses

W.B West Bengal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES
• Constitution of India, 1950

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

• General Clause Act, 1897

• Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980

BOOKS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 6

• Dr. Kailash Rai, The Constitutional Law Of India, Central Law

Publications, 107 Darbhanga Castle, Allahabad, 11th Edition,
Reprint 2017

• P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, LexisNexis, Gurgaon, Haryana, 13th

Edition, 2017

• P S A Pillai, Criminal Law, LexisNexis, Guragaon, Haryana, 14th

Edition, 2019

• Dr. N V Paranjape, The Code Of Criminal Procedure, Central Law

Agency, Allahabad, 6th Edition, 2017

DYNAMIC LINKS
• Indiankanoon.org

• www.livelaw.in

• www.casemine.com

• www.lexisnexis.com

CASES
1. People’s Union of Civil Liberties Vs. UOI, AIR 1997 SC
568……………………………………………………………………..16

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 7

2. Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A K Chopra, AIR 1999

SC 26………………………………………………………………………
16

3. Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2)
621…...........................................................................16,19

4. Khara Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963, SC

1295……………………………………………………………………16

5. PUCL Vs. State of Maharashtra,2014…………..................17

6. D K Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1997 (1),SCC 416…….17

7. Pranab Chatterjee Vs. State of Bihar (1970) 3 SCC 926......17

8. State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh & Anr., 1952, 1953, AIR 10,
1953 SCR
254………………………………………………………………17

9. Madhu Limaye & Anr. Vs. Unknown, AIR 1969 SC

1014………..18

10.Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,Criminal Appeal No.

1277 of 2014 (Special Leave Petition CCRC) No. 9127 of
2013………………………………………………………………………
…..18

11.Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families

Association(EEVFAM) & Anr. Vs. UOI & Anr.,
2012……………..18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 8

12.Challa Ramkonda Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989,

1990 ACJ 668, AIR 1989 AP 235…………………………….18

13.Tamil Nadu Vs. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640………………….26

14.Devender Pal Singh Vs. State(National Capital Territory of

India) AIR 2002 SC
1661……………………………………………….25

15.Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad AIR 2012

SC 1339……………………………………………………………..12

16.Apex Court in Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs. M S Sampoornam

(Mrs.) 2007, 2 SCC
258…………………………………………………20

17.Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, 2008…………..20

18.Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab …………………………….20

19.State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC

32……………………………………………………………………………
15

20.Jassa Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2002) 2 SCC 418…….22

21.Kasha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan……………………………22

22.State of Orissa Vs. Ram Bhahadur Thappa AIR 1960 ORI

161, Cr Jl 1347(Ori)
……………………………………………………..23

23.Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan 1979 AIR 1010, 1979 SCR (3)
428………………………………………………………………………23

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 9

24.Purna Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1674…….20

25.Harendra Kumar Deva Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (Gauhati

High Court, 2008)
……………………………………………………….21

26.Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association Vs.

UOI………………………………………………………………………….
24

27.State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 AIR 75, 1952
of 284………………………………………………………………24

28.Nagpore Investment Trust Vs. Vithal Rao & Subramaniam

Swamy Vs. CBI,
2014………………………………………………….24

29. Subramanian Swami Vs. Raju (2014)……………………….25

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’bleSC of Indica has jurisdiction in this matter under Art

32

Art 32 is as follows –

 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1)  The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2)  The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the SC by clause
( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the
powers exercisable by the SC under clause ( 2 )
(4)  The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 11

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Indica is a country that follows the principles

of a constitutional democracy while very vehemently
regarding the doctrine of separation of power as a part of its
basic structure and thus calls for a division of power between
the judiciary, executive and legislature.

2. Vivek Das, an allegedly notorious figure, in Kaulpur, Unkar

Pradesh and neighbouring areas. He had somewhere around
60 documented criminal cases against him including the
murder of a college manager and a cable operator.In 2001,
Vivek was charged with shooting SandeshShakula, a state
minister inside a police station in 2000 for which he was
pronounced not guilty by the trial court owing to “lack of
evidence” and “absence of eyewitness”, after allegedly each of
more than a dozen police personnel, who were present at the
time of crime, turned hostile.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 12

3. On the intervening night of 2nd-3rd August 2020, a team of

about 20 policemen had gone to the residing village of Vivek
Das arrest Vivek Das.Thereafter, the team was attacked by
henchmen of Vivek Das including from rooftops. At least 7
Unkar Pradesh police officers were injured in the attack and
10 police officers (including a DSP and three SI) were
murdered during a raid to arrest Vivek Das in Bishaal village.

4. During the shootout VivekDas’s relatives have also got shot

dead.Meantime Vivek found absconding and police
demolished his house.Chandapur’s SO Vishal Trivedi got
suspended under the perception that he tipped-off Vivek Das
about the raid.

5. Darshan Aggarwal, a close aide to Vivek Das was arrested

and confessed the fact that there were police aiding him.

6. Diwakar Mahajan, a police officer killed in the shootout wrote

a letter to SP Angad Desai detailing the extent of Vivek’s
connection with the police and political authorities, later SP
was transferred.

7. Police arrested Vivek’s aides including six men and two

women and his bodyguard was also killed by police. SHO
VasuTanvar as arrested on charges of leaking information to
Vivek.

8. On 9th August, Vivek was arrested at the temple in Usherpur.

Hours later his wife Rinki Das was also arrested.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 13

9. On 10th August, the SPT car carrying Vivek and policemen

overturned, after which Vivek tried to escape by snatching a
gun from was shot dead.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1: Whether the actions and omissions of the Police of Unkar

Pradesh resulted in the violation of Article 21 of Constitution of
Indica in as much as Vivek Das was killed and his life was away
without the due procedure established by law.

ISSUE 2: Whether the Police of Unkar Pradesh was justified in

killing the dreaded criminal who had brazenly killed scores of
Policemen along with his henchmen and the action of Police is
justified in terms of self-defence (Chapter IV: General Exceptions,
Section 96-106) of Indica Penal Code. Also, whether the police have
followed the principle as provided under Cr.P.C i.e. to produce the
accused before the concerned court and various other provisions of
Cr.P.C.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

Whether the actions and omissions of the Police of Unkar

Pradesh resulted in the violation of Article 21 of Constitution
of Indica in as much as Vivek Das was killed and his wife was
away without the due procedure established by law.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the

respondents has acted in contravention to art 21 of the constitution
as the deceased wasn’t given a fair chance of trial and his liberty
was curtailed by the state. It is further submitted that there is a
violation under art 14 and 22 of the constitution.

ISSUE 2

Whether the Police of Unkar Pradesh was justified in killing the

dreaded criminal who had brazenly killed scores of Policemen
along with his henchmen and the action of Police is justified in
terms of self defence (Chapter IV: General Exceptions, Section

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 15

96-106) of Indica Penal Code. Also, whether the police have

followed the principle as provided under Cr.P.C i.e. to produce
the accused before the concerned court and various other
provisions of Cr.P.C.

It is humbly submitted that the police of Unkar Pradesh was

justified in killing the deceased as no matter how dread full a
person is, he should not be deprived of his fundamental rights. In a
democratic country like Indica where there is a clear separation of
powers between the judiciary, executive and the legislative, a
person’s right to be heard in court cannot be denied. Further the
police cannot claim pr otection under private defenses
(sec96-106IPC) because it is clearly stated that the right to private
defence in no case exact to the inflicting more harm than necessary
to inflict for the purpose of defence. The police has not fully
complied with provisions of arrest under CrPC sec like sec 47(2)
while conducting the search arrest.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the actions and omissions of the Police of Unkar

Pradesh resulted in the violation of Article 21 of
Constitution of Indica in as much as Vivek Das was killed
and his life was away without the due procedure
established by law.

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949 states that;

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 16

Even State cannot violate right to life  and obligation to

follow  procedure established by law  under  Art 21 .In a detailed
order passed on September 23, 2014, the Bench of then Chief
Justice RM Lodha and Justice RF Nariman firstly

highlighted that the right to life under Article 21 is available

to every person and that even the State has no authority to violate
that right.

The court in Peoples Union of Civil Liberties Vs UOI1 the court held
that fake encounter is violative to Art 21. If it is proved that the
person has been killed by the police in a fake encounter, the state
may be directed to pay compensation in such cases.

In Maneka Gandhi’s 2case the SC has made it clear that Art

14,19,21,and 22 are not mutually exclusive .They strengthen each
other.

1.1Whether due process of law was followed

u/a 21 the right to life and personal liberties will not be restricted if
procedures established by law isn’t followed.(Khara Singh Vs State
of UP) 3

The procedures of laws which weren’t followed in this case are the
following

1 AIR 1997 SC 568

2 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

3AIR1963,SC1295

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 17

16 point guidelines laid down by the SC for thorough and effective

investigation procedures in the case of police encounter as stated
in the case4, where the SC directed that the requirements/norms
must be strictly observed in all cases of death and grievous injury
in police encounters by treating them as law declared under Art
141 of the Indian Constitution.The guidelines highlighted by SC in
D.K. BasuVs State of W.B to prevent violation of Art 21 while
during interrogation, investigation and otherwise. Also the certain
other procedural safe guards are to be followed along with these
guidelines like;

In the case5, the Hon’bleSC held that Sec 50 of Cr.P.C is

mandatory. If particulars of offence are not communicated to an
arrested person, his arrest and detention are illegal. The grounds
can be communicated orally or even impliedly by conduct. The
same is further implied in Art 22(1)Sec 57 of Cr.P.C. and Art 22(2)
of Constitution,In case6 , the Hon’bleSC held that arrest without
warrant call for greater protection and production within 24 hours
ensures the immediate application of judicial mind to the legality of
the arrest.

The deceased was not taken to magistrate hence it is an

indication of the arrest being illegal. in Matter of Madhu Limayeand

4PUCL vsState of Maharashtra case (2014)

5Pranab Chatterjee V. State of Bihar, (1970) 3 SCC 926

6State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10, 1953 SCR 254

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 18

V Unknown7 the court held that the magistrate before whom the
arrest is presentented is required to apply his judicial mind to
determine whether the arrest was regular , legal and in accordance
with law.

167, Cr.P.C , in case8it was held that the arrest made is legal and in
accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person
arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does
not satisfy the requirements of Sec 41 of the Code, Magistrate is
duty bound not to authorise
his further detention and release the accused.

1.2 Whether the procedures established by law must be

reasonable, fair and just ?

1.2.1Concept of sovereign immunity is no exception to Art 21

The courts in India have acknowledged death caused by police

person and armed forces in their exercise of private defence,
however the act in private defence shouldn’t be a
retaliatory act and it was stated in case9. Where as in case10, Art 21
of the Constitution declares "no person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law”. Therefore it could not be a defence to say that officials of the

7 AIR 1969 sc 1014

8Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar &Anr, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1277 OF 2014 (SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)

9Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) &Anr. v.Union of India &Anr in 2012.

10ChallaRamkonda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989, 1990 ACJ 668, AIR 1989 AP 235

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 19

State were discharging sovereign functions of the State, and the

concept of sovereign immunity is no exception to Art 21. Further in
the same case Personal liberty enshrined in Art 21 is of widest
amplitude. It includes a variety of rights which go to constitute the
personal liberty of a person and some of them have been given
protection under Art 19.

Art 14 states that everyone is equal before law and equal protection
before law. It prevents arbitrary discretion being vested in the
executive. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness11 . In this case the
deceased was shoot dead by the police before he could avail his
natural right, the right to be heard.

The police can’t rely on Sec.46(3) of the Cr.P.C to justify

extrajudicial killings, for they cannot plead that causing the death
of an accused in the absence of provocation is a sovereign state
function. In such case the immunity of the police officer under Sec
197 or Cr.P.C were in which prosecution against the police can only
take place as per sanction of government will not come under due
procedure of law. The fair trial each person has a right to be dealt
with fairly in a criminal trial. Under our Constitution also the
International treaties and Conventions, the right to get a fair trial is
a basic fundamental/human right.Further the right to defend
oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognized by
the Parliament in terms of sub-sec (2) of Sec 243 of the Cr.P.C.
“Fair trial” includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to
prove innocence. In a criminal case, denial of that right means

11Maneka Gandhi vs union of india ,AIR1978 SC 597

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 20

denial of fair trial. This issue now stands concluded by decision of

Ho’nble Apex Court in KalyaniBaskar (Mrs.) Vs. M.S. Sampoornam
(Mrs.)12

1.2.2AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM

Art 14 says about the equality before the law and Art 21 talks
about the protection of life and personal liberty. This maxim
ensures that fair hearing and justice will be done towards both the
parties, both the parties have right to speak. No decision will be
taken by court without hearing both the parties. In a case13, it was
held that in order for a procedure to be fair, just and reasonable, it
had to confirm to the principles of natural justice. One of the core
principles of natural justice is audi alteram partem, or to hear the
other side. It further includes two facets: 1) notice of the charge
against the said person and; 2) an opportunity to explain the said
charge.

1.2.3Presumptions of innocence till proven guilty

In a case14it was held that Art.21 contemplates the right of accused
to have a fair trial, through a fair procedure and fair investigation.
However, by allowing the arresting authority to cause the death of a
person accused of a particular offence renders their rights under
Art.21 as dead they are denied an opportunity to be heard by an

12(2007) 2 SCC 258]

13Kartar Singh v State of Punjab

14Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, 2008

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 21

independent adjudicatory authority. Presumption of innocence is

an important concept in criminal law, however, that is defeated if
such a power is given to an arresting authority.

2. Whether the Police of Unkar Pradesh was justified in killing

the dreaded criminal who had brazenly killed scores of
Policemen along with his henchmen and the action of Police is
justified in terms of self-defence (Chapter IV: General
Exceptions, Section 96-106) of Indica Penal Code. Also,
whether the police have followed the principle as provided
under Cr.P.C i.e. to produce the accused before the concerned
court and various other provisions of Cr.P.C.
The police party in no way are justified to murder a deceased
because the natural or human rights of a person cannot be altered
by the executive.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had also send a

notice regarding the encounter killing.

2.1 Weather the respondents can claim protection under

private defence?

Private defence falls under the Sec 96 to 106 of IPC but these rights
are subjected to restrictions under Sec 99.

The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right

circumscribed by IPC and it is available only when the

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 22

circumstances clearly justify it. It is basically preventive nature and

not punitive.15

The right of private defence arises only when there is unexpected

apprehension and one is totally unawares. 16

Justify the right of private defence recognized under the IPC and
limitations there on, authors of the code observed :

“we propose ….to except from the operation of penal clause of the
code large classes of acts done in good faith for the purpose of
repelling unlawful aggression……..doctrine of private defence that
the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is
entitled to make use must not be unduly disproportionate to the
injury which is to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended
and should never exceed its legitimate purpose .The exercise of the
right of private defence must never be vindictive or malicious”17

2.1.1 Whether the respondents acted in good faith?

Good faith is defined under IPC under sec 52 and 3(22) of general
clause act.

Under the general clause act the stress in more on the moral
element of honesty and right motive .if the intension is honest ,

15Jassasingh v state of Haryana,(2002) 2 SCC 418

16 Kasha ram v state of rajasthan(2008) 3 SCC 55

17 Macaulay, Macleod, Anderson and millett , a penal code prepared by the Indian law
commission ,command of the governer general of india, Pelham Richardson , 1838 , note b p 82

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 23

then even if the act was negligent, it is deemed to be done in good

faith.

In the case of state of Orissa Vs Ram BahadurThapa 18 the court

held that the law does not expect the same standard of create and
attention from all persons regardless of the positon they occupy .19

2.1.2 Whether the force was proportional to the apprehension

In the case the respondents claim that the deceased grabbed the
gun and tried to escape or tried to attack and the they shot him
down ,however the police aren’t justified to shooting him in a
manner that would lead to his death. There were no injuries to any
one amongst the police team hence their apprehension isn’t
justified.

In that case Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan 20 could held that to

claim a right to private defence exceeding to voluntary causing
death the accused must show that there were circumstances giving
rise to reasonable grounds for apprehension that either death or
grievous hurt would caused him. The burden is on the accused to
show that he had a right of private defence which extends to
causing death.

2.3 Whether the procedures laid out in Cr.P.C was followed

18 AIR 1960 ORI 161:(1960) Cr LJ 1347(ori)

19Psapillais criminal law , 14thedision ,lexis nexis,p 76

201979 AIR 1010, 1979 SCR (3) 428

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 24

S.46 of the CrPC details the manner in which an arrest is to be

made. S.46(2) of the CrPC states

Reading and interpreting the sections together, it would mean that

one may cause death in case the person is merely accused of an
offence that is punishable with death or life imprisonment while
attempting to effect arrest using necessary means. This
interpretation has been considered in cases as well Harendra
Kumar Deka v State of Assam21

In State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar22, it was held that

reasonable classification, must fulfil two criteria; 1) it must be
based on an intelligible differentia, with some real and substantial
distinction which distinguishes persons or things together in the
class from others left out of it.;2) the differentia must bear a
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
statute.

Further in case23, it was held that the object itself must be non-
discriminatory. It must be remembered that the CrPC is applicable
to all persons accused of offences under the IPC 1860. Such people
form a class.

21Gauhati High Court. 2008; Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v Union of
India (‘EEVFA’).

221952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284

23Nagpore Investment Trust v Vithal Rao and Subramanian Swamy v CBI, 2014

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 25

Subramanian Swamy v CBI24, while holding Sec.6(A) of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act 1946 to be violative of Art.14, it
was observed that every public servant against whom there is
reasonable suspicion of commission of a crime or there are
allegations of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 had to be treated equally and similarly under the law. Any
distinction made between them on the basis of their status or
position in service for the purposes of inquiry or investigation was
nothing but an artificial one and offending Art 14. Thus, the
classification is not based on any intelligible differentia and is
arbitrary.

It is condented that the objects of the CrPC is that an accused

person must have a fair trial in accordance with the principles of
natural justice, one fails to see how allowing the arresting authority
the power to cause the death of some accused and not others has
any connection with the object. In fact, it is entirely contrary to the
object of the CrPC.

In this case, neither are the broad features distinguishable and

neither does the classification have any nexus with the object of the
statute.

2.4Pressumsions

In whole facts in this case seems to be suspicious, the police party

Shoot down Vivek in an "encounter" so as to cover the tracks of

24ibid

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 26

those whom he had close binds with, the petitioners are also
suspecting a criminal conspiracy behide the same.

Sec120 A of IPC

In state of Tamil Nadu V Nalini25the court has laid down principle

regarding conspiracy, it is clear from the guidelines the conspiracy
is to proved taking in consideration the facts of the case.

The petitioners would like to point out that the criminal who have
been free in spite of “more than 60 criminal cases pending against
him in Kaulpur and neighbouring districts wore than 20 years is
being apprehended and soon enough encountered with a span of a
week.

Conspiracy is always hatched in screacy …. Hence the offence can

be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidences. 26

The letter of officer Diwakar Mahajan, to SP Angad Desai in March

and it detailed the extent of Vivek’s connections with the police and
political authorities. It is humbly submitted that SP Angad Desai
was transferred subsequently.

The police had come with the intension to attack when they came
for raid arrest in the first because it is not common for local police
to carry weapons like AK47,INSAS etc.

25 Air 1999 SC2640

26Devender pal singh Vs. state(national capital territory of delhi),AIR 2002 SC 1661

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 27

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised,arguments advanced and authorities cited ,may
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: 

1.Hold the specia lpolice team liable for the muder of vivek Das u/s 302 of IPC. 

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 28

2. hold them liable for violating art 21 of the constitution

3.hold the police officer in charge for the shootout and the special police
team liable u/s 120A and 120B of IPC 

4.hold the police officer involved and special police team liable for not
following the procedure in CrPC u/s

And pass any order that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the
intreset of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

Let the justice prevail;

counsle of petitoners

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER