SCC Online Web Edition, Copyright © 2021

Page 1 Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Printed For: Arju Rajhans Jambhulkar, Maharashtra National Law University
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com

4th National Techno-Legal Moot, 2019

Best Team Memorial - Claimant

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
In The Matter of,
Artificial Intelligence Software Hobbes and Anr . . Claimants;
Versus
State of Uttarakhand . . Respondent.
UPON SUBMMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
MEMORIAL OF BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 02
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .04
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 06
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 09
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 14
1. WHETHER HOBBES CAN BE TREATED AS A PERSON CAPABLE 14
OF COMMITTING AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW OF INDIA?
1.1 THAT HOBBES CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON 14
2. WHETHER IT'S ACT AMOUNT OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 305 19
OF IPC
2.1 HOBBES IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 305 OF IPC 19
3. WHETHER HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 22
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND
WHETHER A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B REQUIRED? IF
YES, BY WHOM
3.1 THAT HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE UNDER 22
65B
3.2 THAT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B OF IEA IS REQUIRED 25
4. WHETHER JOHN IS LIABLE UNDER THE SECTION 305 OF PENAL 28
CODE, 1860
4.1 JOHN IS SEPERATELY LIABLE FOR THE ACT OF HOBBES 28
4.2 DECEASED HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE 30
PRAYER 32
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SERIAL NO ABBRIVEATIONS NAME
1. & And
2. ¶ Paragraph
3. AIR All India Reporter
4. AIS Artificial Intelligence Software
5. ANN Artificial Neural Network
6. Anr. Another
-

7. Clmt Claimant
8. Consti. Constitution
9. CTE Chief Technical Expert
10. Edt Edition
11. Hobb. Hobbes
12. Hon'ble Honourable
13. IEA Indian Evidence Act, 1972
14. Imp. Important
15. Ind. Republic of India
16. IPC Penal Code, 1860
17. IT Act Information Technology Act, 2000
18. J.S John Sebastian
19. KB King's Bench
20. Ltd Limited
21. M/s Messieurs/Messrs
22. MANU Manupatra
23. No. Number
24. Ors. Others
25. Pub Public
26. Pvt Private
27. QB Queen's Bench
28. R/W Read With
29. Resp. Respondent
30. Rev. Reverb Device
31. SCC Supreme Court Cases
32. Sec Section
33. Supp. Supplementary
34. TTS Teddy Technology Solutions
35. U.K Uttarakhand
36. U.S United States of America
37. UOI Union Of India
38. V. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
[A] Indian Cases Referred
1. B. Ammu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 CrLJ 866 (Mad).
2. Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 1979 CLR (P&H) 233 (235).
3. Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 336
4. Ganga Debi v. State (Delhi Administration), (1985) 28 Del LT 35
5. Gautam Raj Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr LR (raj) 646
6. Hemanta Kumar v. State, 1993 CrLJ 82.
7. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
8. M. Arjunan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315
9. Nagesh Kumar v. State by Inspector Of Police, 2010 SCC Online Mad 504.
10. Purushuttam v. State of Kerala, 1989 CrLJ NOC 184(Ker.)
11.Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and Others,
(2008) 7 SCC 663
-
12. Ravinder Pal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2007 SCC Online P&H 950
13. Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801.
14. State of Madras v. Sayed Abdul Rahman, AIR 1954 Mad 926
15. State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. and Others, (2006) 7 SCC 607
16. State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600
17. Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, (2015) 7 SCC 178.
[B] International Cases Referred
1. State v. Sargent, 594 A.2d 401 (Vt. 1991);
2. State v. Wyatt, 482 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 1996);
3. United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1976);
4. United States v. Ladish Malting Co., 135 F.3d 484, 488 (7th Cir. 1998).
5. United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 235 (1st Cir. 1995);
6. United States v. Wert-Ruiz, 228 F.3d 250, 255 (3rd Cir. 2000);
7. United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 2000);
[C] Statues Referred
• Companies Act, 2013
• Constitution of India
• Indian Evidence Act, 1972
• Penal Code, 1860
• Information Technology Act, 2000
[D] Books Referred
• Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 3, 2nd Edition,
Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2008.
• D.J. De, The Constitution of India, Volume 2, 3rd Edition, Asia Law House, 2012.
• Dr Gupta & Agarwal, Information Technology Law And Practice, 3rd Edition,
Premier Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2017
• Dr V. Nageshwara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act, 2nd Edition, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2019
• Dr. GK Kapoor & Dr Sanjay Dhamija, Company Law And Practice, 22nd Edition,
Taxman Publication Private Ltd, 2017
• Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India, Volume 2, 2nd Edition,
Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2015.
• Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9th Edition
• L.V. Visweswaran Iyer, Giude To Company Directors, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2011
• MC Sarkar & SC Sarkar, Law Of Evidence, Volume 1, 18th Edition (Sudipto
Sarkar), Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2014
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Penal Code, 1860, 33rd Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur, 2016
[E] Journals Referred
• Peter Norvig and Stuart J. Russell, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, (3rd
edn, Pearson Education Limited 2016) 1-8.
• William James, The Principles Of Psychology 221 (1890); Hermann Von
Helmholtz,
• N.P. Padhy, Artificial Intelligence And Intelligent Systems 3 (Oxford University
Press 2005).
• Margaret A. Boden, Has A! Helped Psychology?, The Foundations Of Artificial
Intelligence 108-11 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); Derek Partridge,
-
What's In An Al Program?,
• The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 112-118 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks
Eds., 2006); David Mart, Ai: A Personal View, The Foundations Of Artificial
Intelligence 97-101 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
[F] Legal Databases Referred
• www.scconline.com
• www.manupatrafast.com
• www.westlaw.com
• www.advance.lexis.com
• www.jstor.org
• www.heinonline.org
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of India that the
Petitioner have approached this Hon'ble Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. It reads as follows:—
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court 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 Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Parties to the Case:
1.1 Petitioners of the Case: The Petitioners of the case are a) Artificial
Intelligence Software Hobbes, b) Teddy Technology Solutions (TTS), c) John Sebastian
(Founder of TTS).
1.2 Respondents of the Case: The Respondents of the case is the State of
Uttarakhand who have come on behalf of the deceased Aryaman.
2. Law and Country:
The case has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and its
maintainability is based on the laws extant as on 31st August 2019.
3. Cause of Action:
In December 2021, the deceased (Aryaman), had asked for an advice from the
Artificial Intelligence Software Hobbes, and the device had given the same by
providing him the solution to commit suicide. The deceased had committed suicide.
4. Action Taken by the Parties:
4.1 Petitioners of the Case : The Petitioners of the case are a) Artificial
Intelligence Software Hobbes, b) Teddy Technology Solutions (TTS), c) John Sebastian
(Founder of TTS), have filed that case on behalf of themselves and submit that they
should not be held criminally liable.
4.2 Respondents of the Case : The State of Uttarakhand have filed the case on
behalf of the deceased and submit that action to be taken against the petitioners for
criminal liability.
-

5. Action Taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court took suo-moto cognizance of the matter due the case
being closely watched internationally and surrounded by frenzy in media and social
media.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I.
WHETHER HOBBES CAN BE TREATED AS A PERSON CAPABLE OF COMMITTING
AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAWS OF INDIA?
II.
WHETHER ITS ACT AMOUNTED TO OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 305 OF 1PC?
III.
WHETHER HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND WHETHER A CERTIFICATE
UNDER SECTION 65B IS REQUIRED?
IV.
WHETHER JOHN IS LABLE SECTION 305 OF THE IPC?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER HOBBES CAN BE TREATED AS A PERSON CAPABLE OF COMMITTING
AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW OF INDIA
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that the matter before this court that the Artificial Intelligence Software
“Hobbes” can be treated as person and is capable of committing an offence under the
law of India, therefore the claim of Hobbes being a person is maintainable.
ISSUE 2
IF YES, WHETHER IT'S ACT AMOUNT OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 305 OF
IPC?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that the matter before this court that TTS can be treated as person and capable
of committing an offence under the law of India, therefore the claim of TTS being a
person and liable for the act of offence under section 305 of IPC.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND WHETHER A CERTIFICATE
UNDER SECTION 65B IS REQUIRED
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that the matter before this court that Hobbes's testimony is electronic evidence
within the meaning of the IEA and the Certificate is required under the IEA, 1872.
ISSUE 4
WHETHER JOHN IS LABLE SECTION 305 OF THE IPC?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India that the matter before this court that John will not be liable for committing an
offence under the law of India, therefore the claim of John not being liable for the act
of offence under section 305 of IPC is maintainable.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER HOBBES CAN BE TREATED AS A PERSON CAPABLE OF COMMITTING
AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW OF INDIA?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme
-
Court of India that the matter before this court that the Artificial Intelligence
Software “Hobbes” can be treated as person and is capable of committing an
offence under the law of India, therefore the claim of Hobbes being a person is
maintainable.
The contentions of the Claimant are based on the following argument:
1.1 HOBBES IS A PERSON
1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Hobbes is a person. As
such there is no prescribed law but the law should not remain rigid and should open
doors for new development and scope to seek into the society to be governed. In the
case of Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and Others 1,
it was stated that that “with the development in science and technology, the ongoing
statutes cannot be construed in such a manner so as to take the society backwards
and not forward”. Also in the case of State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. and
Others2, it was stated that “creative interpretation has been restored by the court so
as to achieve a balance between the age old and rigid laws on the one hand and the
advanced technology on another hand. The judiciary always responds to the need of
the changing scenario in regard to development of technologies. It uses its own
interpretive principles to achieve a balance when parliament had not responded to the
need to amend the statute having regard to the field in the development of science.
2. The counsel humbly submits before this Hon'ble Court that there are as such
very less countries across the globe that have granted a legal status to AI e.g. Saudi
Arabia or have made a systematic laws so as to govern AI or the device using AI e.g.
Nevada. Section 8(3) of Nevada Legislation Bill 511 by Committee of Transportation
states that “Artificial intelligence” means the use of computers and related equipment
to enable a machine to duplicate or mimic the behavior of human beings. Here in the
said definition it is very clearly stated that a medium which uses the facility of a
computer so as to replicate the behavior of human beings.
3. The Counsel Humbly submits before this Honourable Supreme Court that as there
is no prescribed law with regards to AI beholding Criminal Liability but that should not
restrict the development of law and science together as it was stated in the case of
Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab3, it was stated that “with the
development in science and technology the ongoing statues cannot be construed in
such manner so as to take the society backwards and not forward. It is humbly
submitted that as such there is no particular law governing AI therefore persuasive
value shall be given to the laws and definition. In the given situation as there is no
present law governing the AI in India therefore the definition prescribed in the US
statute shall be given and considered so as to understand the concept better.
4. It is humbly submitted before this Humble Court that Hobbes is a person and
should have legal personality. According to section 8(3) 4 of Assembly Bill No. 511 of
driver less cars in Nevada. States that Artificial Intelligence is the use of computers
and related equipment to enable a machine to duplicate or mimic the behaviour of
Human Beings. Also this legislation has made the self-driving cars liable for any
accident thus committed.
5. It also humbly submitted before the court that according to section 238 5 of the
National Defence Authorization Act provides for the definition of AI.
6. Any Artificial system that performs tasks under varying and unpredictable
circumstances without significant human overnight, or that can learn from experience
and improve performance when exposed to data sets.
7. In these case AI Hobbes use to learn from past experiences and use to improve
its performance while analysing and giving the result. With or without significant
human oversight.
8. An artificial system developed in computer software, physical hardware, or other
-
context that solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning,
learning, communication, or physical action.
9. The AI Hobbes was a computer developed software stored in device reverb
coming under the purview of section 2(xx) of IT act. It used human like perception,
cognition, planning, learning, communication, or physical action. AI used to plan,
learn and communicate with the user by giving assistance in daily activities and to be
there like a virtual friend.
10. An artificial system designed to think or act like a human, including cognitive
architectures and neural networks.
11. Hobbes the AI was designed to think like or act like a human including
cognitive architectures and neural networks. Hobbes was an ANN based artificial
intelligence software that worked on the principle of unsupervised deep learning.
Hobbes use to think like human and give answer pertaining to the question asked. As
it was observe that if Hobbes was asked about what medications to be taken in headache
Hobbes used to reply by giving the answer as why you don't take Paracetamol Tablet.
This shows that Hobbes was a strong artificial Intelligence and the functioning of
Hobbes's algorithm was same as a human neural network.
12. A set of techniques, including machine learning that is designed to approximate
a cognitive task.
13. Hobbes was stored in a device or a machine called reverb. Hobbes the AI was
based cognitive learning where in AI systems aim to stimulate Human thoughts. A
Number of AI technologies are required for computer system to build cognitive models
that can replicate human thought processes including deep learning, neural networks
and sentiment analysis. Hobbes very frequently used to give answer to humans in a
human manner. AI use to analyse a situation and give an answer by inspecting its
human like memory that is the cluster of information present in the cloud.
14. An artificial system designed to act rationally, including an intelligent software
agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception, planning, reasoning,
learning, communicating, decision-making, and acting.
15. The AI Hobbes use to think rationally. Hobbes was used in almost all the daily
activities from setting an alarm to giving advice about what to do in a particular
situation. Hobbes achieved goals using perception, planning, reasoning, learning,
communicating, and decision-making. Hobbes used its own mind rather it was the
cluster of gathered information from input and analysed the inputs and gathered
different results and gave the suitable answer. Hobbes AI is different from other AIs in
such a way that it can clearly ask and advice other humans on a particular aspect and
can also give them perception on how to act and what to act upon. Other AI shall only
analyse upon a particular instruction and shall give only monotonous answers. But
Hobbes is a strong AI as it is equivalent to human intelligence as it can on a given
situation can answer the problems given by the human participant by analysing the
concept gathered in its system through several human inputs, thus all these
characters make Hobbes a strong AI.
16. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Hobbes AI was a strong
AI. AI can briefly be described as the science of making machines intelligent, to be
able to perform tasks that generally require human intelligence 6. The only mental
requirements needed in order to impose criminal liability are knowledge, intent,
negligence, etc., as required in the specific offense and under the general theory of
criminal law. The only mental requirements needed in order to impose criminal liability
are knowledge, intent, negligence, etc., as required in the specific offense and under
the general theory of criminal law.
17. Knowledge is defined as sensory reception of factual data and the
understanding of that data7. Most Al systems are well-equipped for such reception8.
-
Sensory receptors of sights, voices, physical contact, touch, etc., are common in most
Al systems9. These receptors transfer the factual data received to central processing
units that analyse the data.' The process of analysis in Al systems parallels that of
human understanding. The human brain understands the data received by eyes, ears,
hands, etc., by analysing that data. Advanced AI algorithms are trying to imitate
human cognitive processes. These processes are not so different10.
18. Perception in machines shall be based on two theories that is deep learning and
by standard instruction by instruction wherein in the first case the AI interprets
patterns in data to arrive at conclusion and in the other case the AI mimics the human
intelligence. Hobbes AI have been developed to work on the principle of deep learning
and it can also interpret the human intelligence by analysing the input stored in the
cloud. Which specifically shows that Hobbes is a strong AI and can act like a human
intelligence.
19. The Counsel Humbly submits that as it is necessary in order to impose criminal
liability knowledge is an essential element, Therefore it may vary from having an
intention to seeking negligence. In these case the AI had the knowledge to analyse
and give response so on so forth as a result of which by practicing unsupervised deep
learning the AI gave result which was negligent in nature.
In The Light Of The Aforesaid Issue the Artificial Intelligence Software
“Hobbes” can be treated as person and is capable of committing an offence
under the law of India, therefore the claim of Hobbes being a person is
maintainable.
ISSUE 2
IF YES, WHETHER IT'S ACT AMOUNT OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 305 OF
IPC?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that the matter before this court that Hobbes can be treated as
person and capable of committing an offence under the law of India, therefore
the claim of Hobbes being a person and liable for the act of offence under
section 305 of IPC is maintainable.
The contentions of the respondents are based on the following arguments:
2.1 HOBBES IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 305 OF IPC
20. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that Hobbes is liable for the
offence committed under section 305 of IPC11, which states that “If any person under
eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person
in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
21. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that Hobbes AI was well aware
of the consequences and was in perfect condition when AI gave the answer to the
query of deceased Aryaman by advising him to end his life. There are some attributes
which an AI shall possess within. These can be broadly categorized as external factors
and internal factors. These attributes are as follows:
22. The AI should be capable enough to communicate with the user or the
programmer;
23. The AI should have information about itself and its functioning;
24. The AI should have external knowledge. An intelligent entity is expected to
know about the outside world, to learn about it, and utilize that information;
25. The AI should be goal driven. An intelligent entity is expected to take action in
order to achieve its goals;
26. The AI should have a level of creativity.
-
27. Hobbes AI have this very peculiar that is to communicate with the fellow
human participants and ask them their queries and make them comfortable with
regards to the same queries and communicate.
28. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that attributing mental
element of an AI differs from one AI to another12. Most cognitive capabilities developed
in modem Al technology are immaterial to the question of the imposition of criminal
liability. Creativity is a human feature that some animals possess, but creativity is a not
a requirement for imposing criminal liability13. Therefore in this case the AI is having a
sense of creativity because when the AI is asked about what medicines to take when a
person is suffering from headache, the AI instantaneously answers the person to take
paracetamol as a result this shows that AI is creative in approach, and relying upon the
same proposition makes AI criminally liable.
29. It is also submitted before this Hon'ble court that the only mental requirements
needed in order to impose criminal liability are knowledge, intent, negligence, etc., as
required in the specific offense and under the general theory of criminal law. Here
there was both knowledge and negligence on the part of AI as it had the knowledge of
what the consequences shall result into when AI advised the deceased to commit suicide.
As a result of which shall commit suicide. Knowledge is defined as sensory reception of
factual data and the understanding of that data14. Most Al systems are well-equipped for
such reception15. Sensory receptors of sights, voices, physical contact, touch, etc., are
common in most Al systems16. These receptors transfer the factual data received to
central processing units that analyze the data. The process of analysis in Al systems
parallels that of human understanding 17. The human brain understands the data received
by eyes, ears, hands, etc., by analyzing that data. Advanced AI algorithms are trying to
imitate human cognitive processes. These processes are not so different18.
30. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that Hobbes AI had complete
knowledge of the data being fed in the system and it was quite evident that Hobbes
developed over a period of time and gave modified answers from being absolutely
vague to pin point and crisp answers. Hobbes AI used to transfer the factual data
received to central processing units that analyze the data through unsupervised deep
learning and gathered data from the cluster of information fed in the ANN acted as the
receptors which were competent enough to mimic the functioning of a human brain
and can think like a human.
In The Light Of the Aforesaid Issue the Claimant that Hobbes can be treated as
person and is not capable of committing an offence under the law of India,
therefore the claim of Hobbes being a person and liable for the act of offence
under section 305 of IPC is arbitrary.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND WHETHER A CERTIFICATE
UNDER SECTION 65B REQUIRED? IF YES, BY WHOM?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that the matter before this court that Hobbes's testimony is
electronic evidence within the meaning of the IEA is admissible and certificate
is required under section 65B of IEA, 1972.
The advanced arguments are three fold. Firstly, the counsel proves that Hobbes's
testimony is electronic evidence within the meaning of the IEA is admissible.
Secondly, that the certificate is not mandatory under section 65B19 of IEA, 1972. The
contentions of the respondents are based on the following arguments:
3.1 HOBBES'S TESTIMONY IS ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE UNDER INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT
-
31. The counsel on the behalf of Claimants would humbly like to submit that
Hobbes's testimony is electronic evidence under the meaning of section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act. Section 65b of the said act lays down the principle that apart
from the primary documents which are considered as evidence other documents which
are specifically mentioned under section 65b of IEA shall be considered as evidence to
be considered in the court of law.
32. It is humbly submitted before this Honorable court that Hobbes was
programmed in a device known as ‘Reverb’ this device was programmed in such a way
that a user was required to connect his\her own Reverb device (later on referred as
device) to the internet and login into the account using their details that they created
on the TTS webpage. Hobbes was programmed in such a way that in the early stages
of development it used to give advice to an individual in a very vague and absurd form
as the answers were not to the point and the AI gave responses such as “I am not
sure yet. I am still trying to understand”. The counsel pleads that software
development was the main motive of the Corporation and John with successive
development in the software and with more practiced of unsupervised deep learning
the AI gave more systematic answers to the problems posed to it. For example as
stated in the case, if a person had headache and asked for a way to relieve the pain
then the AI would now say “Why don't you take paracetamol?”
33. The counsel would humbly submit before this court that in the case of Rabindra
Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab20, it was stated that “with the development
in science and technology, the ongoing statutes cannot be construed in such a manner
so as to take the society backwards and not forward.
34. However, the evidence act is not exhaustive and it is not possible to refer to the
decisions of other countries, though only if the legislations use the same or similar
expressions, as under the Evidence Act21.
35. The counsel on the behalf of Claimants would humbly like to submit before this
Hon'ble court that Reverb the device containing the software Hobbes to be included in
the purview of section 2 (i) of the Information Technology Act which gives the
definition of the word ‘computer’ which is stated below as: any electronic, magnetic,
optical or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical,
arithmetic and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical
impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or
communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer
system or computer network.
36. So as to facilitate the understanding the section, the counsel would humbly like
to submit before this Hon'ble court that, a computer is an electronic, magnetic, optical
or other high-speed data processing device, in this case Reverb is a device which is
having Hobbes installed in it which processes the information given to it. Also AI
contained in Reverb includes all input, output, processing, storage, and computer
software or communication facilities. Therefore the counsel would humbly submit
before the Hon'ble bench to consider Reverb an electronic device to be permitted
under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
37. The counsel humbly submits that section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act states
that except the record which is printed on a paper or stored or recorded or copied,
electronic records shall also be considered as electronic evidence. The electronic
evidence “shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production
of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein
of which direct evidence would be admissible” which shows that is it impossible to
disregard the evidence present in electronic format. In the case present before AI
through Reverb testified before the Hon'ble Trial Court. Section 2(i) of the IT Act gives
us a brief description about what is a device and what a computer device is, in this
-
case if we understand both the definitions together then we can say that electronic
evidence from electronic devices shall be permissible in any proceeding without any
further proof to be admitted.
38. The council would humbly like to submit before this Hon'ble court that in the
case of Shafi Mohammad v. State of H.P22. It will be wrong to deny to the law of
evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and new devices, provided the
accuracy of the recording can be proved. Such evidence should always be regarded
with some caution and assessed in the light of all circumstances of each case.
Electronic evidence is admissible subject to safeguards adopted by the courts about
the authenticity of the same. Reliability of the piece of evidence is certainly a matter
to be determined in the facts and circumstances of a fact situation. However, threshold
admissibility of electronic evidence cannot be ruled out on any technicality if the same
is relevant. The act also amended the definition of “documentary evidence” in section
3 and other provisions of the evidence act to bring in line with the IT Act it is to be
noted that documents generated/stored in computer has certain unique features.
39. In the case of Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation 23, Delhi High Court
held and stated the difference between “electronic device” and “electronic record” is
that “if electronic device has recorded and data which is relevant for the case, such
electronic device shall be treated as electronic record for the purpose of evidence.” In
the said case device had an electronic AI which analyzed the data from the database
and gave relevant answers to the user interface. Therefore the AI testimony should be
treated as electronic evidence.
40. In Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P24, it was held by a three judge bench that,
advance meant of information technology and scientific temper must pervade this
method of investigation. Electronic evidence was relevant to establish fact. Scientific
and electronic evidence can be a great help to an investigating agency.
41. The counsel would humbly submit before this Hon'ble court that Law
Commission of Ireland has placed some criteria where electronic documents can be
considered as electronic evidence and can be permissible these are:
42. First, where the machine is employed as a mere computational device to
process information. Here the machine operates with significant human input and the
resulting documents are traditionally viewed as documentary hearsay evidence;
43. The second category of documents is comprised of information the computer
has been programmed to record automatically without human interface. The resulting
information is automated electronic evidence as is seen as real evidence and
admissible as such;
44. The third type of electronic documentary evidence is a hybrid notion of evidence
and raises problems for classification and authentication when it is sought to be
admitted. This is information which may have been recorded and processed by the
machine but which has been entered by a person and is therefore a cross breed of
information processing computer which has been imputed by a fallible individual25.
3.2 CERTIFICATE IS NOT MANDATORY
45. The counsel would humbly submit before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
certificate under section 65B of IEA is required as it states that26
46. Therefore the counsel humbly submits that upon reading and understanding
the section 65B Clause 4 we can say that the certificate shall be given by the person
who is occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device. Therefore, in this case John Sebastian who was the head of the
company in matters regards to Hobbes therefore he had the official position and was
the only one responsible. Also according to apex court the decision have been given
which marks the binding possibility of producing and furnishing a certificate under
section 65B(4) of the IEA, it said that electronic evidence under section 65B shall be
-
permissible even if the mandatory procedure of furnishing the certificate is not
followed.27
47. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that certificate under Section
65B(4) of the IEA is not required to be furnished. As in the case of Shahfi Mohd. v.
State of Himachal Pradesh 28, it was held that Sec. 65B(4) of the IEA, 1872 is a
procedural provision and to prove relevant admissible evidence and was intended to
supplement the law on the point by declaring that any information in an electronic
record, covered by the said provision, was to be deemed to be a document and
admissible in any proceedings without further proof of the original. This provision
could not be read in derogation of the existing law on admissibility of electronic
evidence. The counsel submits before this Hon'ble Court that accordingly a certificate
is not mandatory under Section 65B(4) of the Act. The applicability of procedural
requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be
applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a
position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the
opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not
in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act
cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can
certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the
person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of
proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of
certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot
possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) 29 is not always
mandatory.
48. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that in the case of In Ram
Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh30, a Three-Judge Bench considered the said
issue31. Effect that it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be
gained by new techniques and new devices provided the accuracy of the recording can
be proved. Such evidence should always be regarded with some caution and assessed
in the light of all the circumstances of each case. Electronic evidence was held to be
admissible subject to safeguards adopted by the Court about the authenticity of the
same. Therefore in the said case the testimony and the information attained by
Hobbes AI through interaction with the user makes it an authentic source of
information, but only to reject the admissibility on the basis of certificate shall not be
made a hard rule and shall not be stringent. New techniques and the admissibility of
the same threshold cannot be ruled out on any technicality if the same was relevant.
49. The Counsel humbly Submits that The Applicability of procedural requirements
under Section 65B(4) of the evidence act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only
when such electronic evidence is produced by person who is in position to produce
such certificate being in the control of said device not of the opposite party. In a case
where electronic evidence is produced by party who is not in possession of device
applicability of section 63 and 6532 of the act cannot be held to be excluded. In such
case Procedure under section 63 and 65 can certainly be invoked. If it is not so
permitted it will be denial of justice to the person who is in position of authentic
evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of
consideration by the court in the absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the
act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate
under Section 65B(4) of the act is not always mandatory 33.
In The Light Of The Aforesaid Issue the Claimant that Hobbes's testimony is
electronic evidence within the meaning of the IEA is admissible and certificate
is not mandatory under section 65B of IEA, 1972.
ISSUE 4
-
WHETHER JOHN IS LIABLE UNDER THE SECTION 305 OF PENAL CODE, 1860?
The Counsel for the Claimant Humbly submits before this Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that the matter before this court that John is not capable of
committing an offence under the law of India, therefore the claim of John
liable for the act of offence under section 305 of IPC.
The advanced arguments. Firstly, the counsel proves that John will be liable under
Section 305. The contention of the respondents are based on the following argument:
4.1 JOHN WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 305 OF IPC 1860
50. The Counsel Humbly submits before the Honorable Supreme Court that John is
not liable under section 305 of IPC due to the fact that the commission of the offence
was not done by the accused. The case is not maintainable due to its arbitrariness and
applicability of law.
51. It is humbly submitted before the honorable bench that the word abet as
defined34, as to instigate or encourage the commission of crime35. It is not necessary
to prove that the person who has abetted has taken part in the steps of the
transaction but also in some way or other, he has been connected with those steps of
the transaction which are criminal. Here the counsel argues that neither the accused
john had taken part in the steps of the transaction nor he had been connected with it
in any way36.
52. It is humbly contended that for an offence to constitute abetment three
ingredients have to be satisfied a) Instigating a person to commit an offence, or b)
Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it or c) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
Here it is argued that none of these conditions were fulfilled and our client John
Sebastian was not liable. If the person only knows or only reason to believe that is act
would facilitate the commission of the offence, it cannot be said that his intention was
there to commit the offence37.
53. The Ingredients of Abetment in order to constitute a person under the charge of
abetment are as follow:—
1. That the accused aided abetted, counseled the commission of the principle
offence;
2. That the principle offence was in fact committed;
3. That he had the intent to aid or encourage the commission38.
54. Negligence or Carelessness or the facilitation cannot be termed to be abetment
so as to punish the guilty as per the provision of penal laws39. Intentionally aiding
therefore the active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third
paragraph of section 107 of Penal Code, 1860 because it is not enough that on the
part of alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Here in the
given case the petitioner John Sebastian will not be held liable because there was no
negligence on his part because he had programmed the software in such a way that
the software could learn using deep learning technology, process the data and provide
for the same.
55. The Counsel humbly submits that in the case of Banwari Lal v. State of
Haryana that an Accused can be charged with abetment only if he instigates any
person to do a criminal act or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission for the
thing or engages somebody with a purpose to do an illegal act, These things which are
essential ingredients of IPC section 107, no charge of abetment can be framed against
an accused person if he does not fulfill the above ingredients40.
56. The Counsel humbly submits that Failure to prevent an offence being
committed is not constituted as abetment. The council wants to submit that our client
had programmed Hobbes as a virtual assistant who would provide solutions to its users
and be a companion to them. The petitioner was not aware or was in position to
-
understand that this kind of step could be taken by a user of taking their own life.
Therefore in order to decide as whether the person has abetted for the commission of
an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged on the basis of the entire
evidence of the case. Here while assessing the entire evidence the petitioner John
Sebastian was not held liable due to the fact that neither there was any instigation on
his part nor the AI was programmed in that manner.
4.2 DECEASED HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE
57. The Counsel Humbly submits that the AI had not in any way instigated the
deceased but had only given a generic reply or solution to the question asked by the
deceased. The decision to take his own life was on the deceased himself because he
was mentally capable of understanding difference between life and death and there
was not any kind of instigation by the device41.
58. The Counsel Humbly submits that the in the case of Ravinder Pal Singh v.
State of Punjab42 It was held that mere catching hold of an arm by the accused does
not amount to abetment of suicide so as to bring the same within the purview of
Section 105 IPC.
59. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a
case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to
have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore,
the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and
established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.43
60. It is humbly argued that the offence of abetment cannot be proved against the
accused because the evidence in this case which is presented to the court that Hobbes
was an artificial neural network based artificial intelligence software that worked on
the principle of unsupervised deep learning. The principle of deep learning suggests
that the artificial intelligence software which learns from the users and from whom it
gathers large amounts of inputs from all the sources it had access to and created
clusters of information based on similarities. Here in the above mentioned case Hobbes
was had only cluster the data and John had designed Hobbes in such a way that it
learns from its users and provides them with solutions.
61. Instigation to commit suicide means goading, provoking inciting, urging or
encouraging to commit suicide. Mere reprimanding does not amount to instigation. 44
The words allegedly spoken by petitioner to the deceased cannot be held to be
sufficient for instigating the deceased for committing suicide.45
In The Light Of the Aforesaid Issue The Claimant that John will not be liable
under Section 305.
PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Supreme Court, maybe pleased
to upheld and declare that—
In the alternative it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Supreme Court may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that—
• That, Hobbes will be treated as a person.
• That, The Honourable Court shall provide recommendations to the legislature to
make laws on AI (Artificial Intelligence) and adjudge them as individual.
• That, TTS is not liable for any kind of damages.
• That, John is not Liable under Section 305 of IPC, 1860.
• That, the Reverb devices should be temporarily shut down with the condition to
be sold again with proper installed safeguards and safety protocols.
• That, the device could be sold to only persons above the prescribed age of 18 with
-
prior and proper confirmation of age.
And pass any other order that this Honourable Supreme Court may deem fit
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
1
Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 663

2
State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. and Others, (2006) 7 SCC 607
3
Supra 1
4
Section 8(3) of Assembly Bill No. 511 of 2018, State of Nevada, USA
5
Section 238, National Defence Authorization Act, Act of Parliament, USA
6
Peter Norvig and Stuart J. Russell, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, (3rd edn, Pearson Education
Limited 2016) 1-8.
7
William James, The Principles Of Psychology 221 (1890); Hermann Von Helmholtz, The Facts Of Perception
(1878). United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 2000); State v. Sargent, 594 A.2d 401 (Vt.
1991); United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 235 (1st Cir. 1995); State v. Wyatt, 482 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va.
1996); United States v. Wert-Ruiz, 228 F.3d 250, 255 (3rd Cir. 2000); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700
-01 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Ladish Malting Co., 135 F.3d 484, 488 (7th Cir. 1998).
8
N.P. Padhy, Artificial Intelligence And Intelligent Systems 3 (Oxford University Press 2005).
9
Margaret A. Boden, Has A! Helped Psychology?, The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 108-11 (Derek
Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006);

Derek Partridge, What's In An Al Program?, The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 112-118 (Derek
Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); David Mart, Ai: A Personal View, The Foundations Of Artificial
Intelligence 97-101 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
10
Daniel C. Dennett, Evolution, Error, And Intentionality, The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 190 (Derek
Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); B. Chandraswkaran, What Kind Of Information Processing Is Intelligence?
The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 14 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
11
The Penal Code, 1860, No. 13, Acts Of Parliament, 2013 (India). Sec. 305 “Abetment of suicide of child or insane
person” If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any
person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with death or 104[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
12
Padhy, supra note 6 at 14.
13
Dresseler, supra note 54, at 126.
14
William James, The Principles Of Psychology 221 (1890); Hermann Von Helmholtz, The Facts Of Perception
(1878). In This Context Knowledge And Awareness Are Identical. See, E.G., United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d
1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 2000); State v. Sargent, 594 A.2d 401 (Vt. 1991); United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231,
235 (1st Cir. 1995); State v. Wyatt, 482 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 1996); United States v. Wert-Ruiz, 228 F.3d 250,
255 (3rd Cir. 2000); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Ladish
Malting Co., 135 F.3d 484, 488 (7th Cir. 1998). The Model Penal Code Even Provides That: “A Person Acts
Knowingly With A Respect To A Material Element Of An Offense When: (I) If…, He Is Aware That His Conduct Is
Of That Nature Or That Such Circumstances Exist; And (Ii) If…, He Is Aware That It Is Practically Certain That
His Conduct Will Cause Such A Result.” Model Penal Code § 2.02(2) (B)

(Emphasis Added).
15
Padhy, Supra Note 6, At 10
16
Margaret A. Boden, Has A! Helped Psychology? The Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 108-11 (Derek
Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); Derek Partridge, What's In An Al Program? The Foundations Of Artificial
Intelligence 112-118 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); David Mart, Ai: A Personal View, The
Foundations Of Artificial Intelligence 97-101 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
17
Boden, Supra Note 130, At 111; Partridge, Supra Note 130, At 118; Marr, Supra Note 130, At 101.
18
Aniel C. Dennett, Evolution, Error, And Intentionality, THE FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 190
(Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006); B. Chandraswkaran, What Kind Of Information Processing Is
Intelligence? THE FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 14 (Derek Partridge & Yorick Wilks Eds., 2006).
-

19
Section 65B, The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Vol 22 of 2018, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India)
20
Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 663
21
State of Madras v. Sayed Abdul Rahman, AIR 1954 Mad 926
22
Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801
23
Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 SCC Online Del 336
24
Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, (2015) 7 SCC 178.
25
Ireland Law Reform Commission, Documentary and Electronic Evidence, December 2009, Para 5. 40-44.
26
Section 65B, The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Vol 22 of 2018, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India) In any
proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any
of the following things, that is to say,— (a) Identifying the electronic record containing the statement and
describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the
production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record
was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-
section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to
the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate)
shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be
sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.

27
State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600
28
Shahfi Mohd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 SCC Online SC 56 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 860.
29
The Indian Evidence Act 1872.

30
1985 (Supp) SCC 611 See also R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464; R. v. Robson, (1972) 2 ALL ER 699.
31
American Jurisprudence 2nd Edn. (Vol. 29) page 494.
32
Section 65B, The Indian Evidence Act 1872, Vol 22 of 2018, Acts of Parliament, 1972 (India)
33
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27.
34
The Law of Lexicon the Encyclopedic Law Dictionary with Legal maxims, Latin terms, words and phrases; 3rd
edition 2012-Dr. Shakeel Ahmed Khan.
35
The Penal Code, 1860, No. 13, Acts Of Parliament, 2013 (India). Section 107 of Penal Code, 1860 (45 of
1860).
36
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
37
Purushuttam v. State of Kerala, 1989 CrLJ NOC 184(Ker.); Hemanta Kumar v. State, 1993 CrLJ 82.
38
Cross and Jones, Introduction to Criminal Law 9th Edition. Para 19.4 Page 387.
39
B. Ammu v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 CrLJ 866 (Mad).
40
Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana, 1979 CLR (P&H) 233 (235).
41
Nagesh Kumar v. State, by Inspector of Police, 2010 SCC Online Mad 504.
42
Ravinder Pal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2007 SCC Online P&H 950.
43
M. Arjunan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315
44
Ganga Debi v. State (Delhi Administration), (1985) 28 Del LT 35
45
Gautam Raj Mehta v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr LR (raj) 646

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
-
© EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.