RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYAPRADESH

UNDER THE ART 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

IN THE MATTER OF

HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATION..................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH..............................................................RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED BY: MAISURIYA DHAVAL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT I

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS.................................................................................III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................VII

ISSUES PRESENTED.............................................................................................IX

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. JIGESH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF “RAREST
OF RARE” CASES?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATES

ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND IN COMMUTING DEATH SENTENCE
OF MR. JIGESH?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. JIGESH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF
“RAREST OF RARE” CASES? ..................................................................................1

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE

VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND IN COMMUTING DEATH
SENTENCE OF MR. JIGESH? ...................................................................................3

PRAYER.....................................................................................................................5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT II

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS

ABBRIVATIONS FULL FORM

Sec Section
& And
Para Paragraph
Admin. Administration
Air All India Report
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Civ. Civil
Chap. Chapter
Const. Constitution
Corp. Corporation
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
Pvt. Private
Rep. Report
SC Supreme Court
SCI Supreme Court of India
Scc Supreme Court Cases
V Versus
Vol Volume
W.P Writ Petition
Ed. Edition
Mad. Madras
MP Madhyapradesh
FIR First Information Report
Mr. Mister
No. Number
Pg. Page
UOI Union Of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT III

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. MACCHI SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

2. BACCHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
3. RAJENDRA PRAHLADRAO WASNIK VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
4. JAGMOHAN SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
5. BHAGWAN TUKARAM VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BOOKS

1. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India, Central Law Agency, 55th

Ed.,2018
2. K. D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code, 6th Ed., 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT IV

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

RULES AND STATUTES

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

LEGAL DATABASE

1. Indian Kanoon [www.indiankanoon.com]

2. Lexis nexis [http://www.lexisnexis.com]
3. alserviceindia.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT V

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High court of Madhyapradesh has jurisdiction to hear the instant matter
under Art 226 of the Indian constitution of India, 1950.1

 Art. 226 of the constitution of India,1950 reads as-

- Article 226 empowers the high court to issue, to any person or authority,
including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto, certiorari or any of them.

1
. Central Government Act, The constitution of India, 1950

[www.indiankanoon.com]

Article 226, in The Constitution Of India 1950:

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT VI

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Mr. Jigesh murdered his wife in a drunken rage at his house. The neighbours
caught hold of Mr. Jigesh and handed him to the police. Mr Jigesh was tried by
the Court and convicted of offences punishable under S.302 of IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994.
 Mr. Jigesh was sent to the central prison in Madhya Pradesh. While he was
There, he became close friends with his cellmate, Mr Karan. With time, Jigesh
and Karan became friends and Karan suggested that Jigesh marry his daughter.
 In the year 1997, Jigesh and Karan obtained parole from the prison and the
Marriage between Jigesh and Karan’s daughter was solemnized. Jigesh’s
Wife delivered twin baby boys.
 However, by the year 1999, Jigesh had started suspecting the fidelity of his wife.
One night, Jigesh was seized by rage. He seized an agricultural implement and
hacked his wife to death. He then killed his two children who were sleeping.
 According to the neighbours who rushed in, Jigesh was trying to commit suicide
by hanging himself when they discovered him and overpowered him.
 The lawyer did not cross examine witnesses of the prosecution nor did he
produce any evidence on behalf of the defence. The Sessions Court sentenced
Jigesh under S.302 and 303 of the IPC to death.
 The matter was referred to a third judge of the High Court when division
 Bench could not come on consensus, third judge felt that there was no discretion
in the matter and confirmed the sentence of death. Mr Jigesh submitted a mercy
petition to the President of Indica which came to be rejected in the year 2005.
 Due to oversight on behalf of the prison authorities, Mr Jigesh was not kept in
the death row cells at the prison, it is only in the year 2010, that the same was
discovered and the prisoner was sent to death row confinement.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT VII

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 On 01.01.2015 (2019), the black warrant for the execution of Mr Jigesh was
issued by the appropriate court.
 The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organization filed a writ
petition claiming that Mr Jigesh cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial
is vitiated by illegality and his execution would violate several provisions of the
Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT VIII

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

 WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. JIGESH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF

‘RAREST OF RARE’ CASES?

ISSUE 2

 WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATES

ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND IN COMMUTING DEATH
SENTENCE OF MR. JIGESH?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT IX

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

 WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. JIGESH FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF

‘RAREST OF RARE’ CASES?

 Act of Mr. Jigesh falls under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases
because of the nature and circumstances of the crime and the
provisions which are manner of commission of the crime, socially
abhorrent nature of the crime and such act which shocks the collective
conscience of the community.

ISSUE 2

 WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE VIOLATES

ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND IN COMMUTING DEATH
SENTENCE OF MR. JIGESH?

 No the delay in execution of the death sentence does not violates

Article 21 and it cannot be a ground in commuting death sentence of
Mr. Jigesh as delay cannot be the a ground for commutation of death
sentence because delay can be only taken as a ground when it is
beyond prisoner’s control but here the delay was caused by Mr. Jigesh
himself.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT X

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

 ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACT OF MR. JIGESH FALLS UNDER THE

CATEGORY OF ‘RAREST OF RARE’ CASES?

1. The ‘rarest of the rare’ case depends upon the facts and circumstances of a
particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of
his involvement in crime, chances of reforming and integrating him into the
society.
2. The present act of mr. Jigesh killing his wife and two children falls under the
‘rarest of rare’ category cases. So there are no any specific criteria for such cases
but thre are special circumstances has to be taken into the consIderation.

 Following are that circumstances

A. MANNER OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

B. SOCIALLY ABHORRENT NATURE OF THE CRIME.
C. ACT OF ACCUSED SHOCKS THE COLLECTIVE
CONSCIENCE OF THE COMMUNITY.

3. In other words, it is the nature and gravity of the crime which supposed to be
considered for appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. In the present case, act
of the accused fulfils all criterion of the doctrine of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.

 Manner of commission of the crime.

4. Hon’ble apex court in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of punjab described
meaning of manner of murder and stated that when murder is committed in an
extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense extreme indignation of the
community then such act is one of the aspects of the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’
cases. Court described some instances and one of them was that when the body of
the victim is cut into the pieces or his body dismembered in a feindish manner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

5. In the present matter the accused done the same with his wife and children, which
means he cut them into pieces. So such case falls under the ‘rarest of the rare’
cases.

 Socially abhorrent nature of the crime.

6. In this case the act of the accused person id abhorrent because he killed his own
wife and innocent children who could not have provided even an excuse, much
less a provocation, for murder.
7. Apex court has already stated that killing children is an act of brutality and
sufficient to apply the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
8. In the present case the accused killed his own children with agriculturat
implement which clearly establishes that his act falls under the purview of ‘raresrt
of rare’ cases.

 Act of accused shocks the collective conscience of the community.

9. When somebody kills his wife and infant children then such act directly affects
the collective conscious of the society. The father is considered as the protector of
his children and family he is always in a position of trust but in this case father
become the killer and killed his whole family so such act certainly shocks the
collective cincious of the society and the community.
10. Therefore, the act of the accused person falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE DELAY IN EXECUTION OF DEATH

SENTENCE VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 AND CAN BE A SOLE GROUND
IN COMMUTING DEATH SENTENCE OF MR. JIGESH?

11. In the present case it is already stated that Mr. Jigesh was convicted under the
section 302 of the Indian penal code, and it falls under the rarest of the rare case.
12. According to section 303 of the Indian penal code whoever being under sentence
of imprisonment for life and commits murder shall be punishable with the death.
13. Since in this case the section 303 was not taken into the consideration as the
parole was obtained by Mr. Jigesh there is no relevancy between any types of
rights and the execution of Mr. Jigesh, so the death sentence of Mr. Jigesh cannot
be held unconstitutional and it does not violates any kind of fundamental rights of
Mr. Jigesh.
14. So the delay in execution of death sentence does not violate article 21.
15. In the meanwhile when Mr. Jigesh was convicted for imprisonment he did not
mention about the death sentence so it’s his own fault because the delay of
execution of Mr. Jigesh was under control of accused person, the accused person
waited for 15 years to be discovered by the prison authorities, he never tried to
know prison authority about his status in prison. If it was the oversight of the
prison authorities then Mr. Jigesh should at least asked to the authorities during
these 15 years then the authorities will surely send him to the execution and he
will be executed without any delay.
16. In this case the mercy petition was also filed by the accused and it was rejected by
the president of Indica as per the article 72 of the constitution the president has
executed his duties and used his powers in an unbiased, proper and non-arbiter
manner.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

17. Therefore, the above arguments clearly establish that the delay in execution of
death sentence does not violates article 21 and if there is no violation of
fundamental right then there is no question about the commitment of the death
sentence.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

 RNPI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authority cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;

1. Trial of Mr. Jigesh is not spoiled by illegality.

2. There is no violation of article 21 of constitution of Indica.
3. Delay in the execution of Mr. Jigesh is not a ground to prevent execution.
4. Mr. Jigesh will be executed.
5. The petition will be dismissed.

And pass any order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of
justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

For this Act of kindness, the Respondent shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Date: All of which is humbly prayed.

Place: S/D. - [ ]

Counsel for the “Respondent”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5