MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

BBD UNIVERSITY
MOOT COURT PREPOSITION 2020

______________________________________________________________________________
_________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

______________________________________________________________________________
_________

W.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. ----OF 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

In the matter of Article 19 and Article 21

Of Constitution of Indiana

_____________________________________________________________________________
_

STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH……………………………………RESPONDENT

V.

AAKASH DUBEY ………………………………………….PETITIONER

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

INDEX

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES………………………………………………………………………..4
TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….....5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………..…….6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………….……10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….11

ARGUMENT ADVANCED……………………………………………..……………….13

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………....……….19

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

2
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Govt. ……………………………………………………………………….government

CrPC …………………………………………...…………Code of Criminal Procedure

SC…………………………………………………………….Supreme Court

AIR ………………………………………………………………All India Reporter

Vs…………………………………………………………….versus

Ors. ………………………………………………………………others

FIR……………………………………………………………….First information Report

CBI………………………………………………………......Central Bureau of Investigation

PIL……………………………………………………………Public Interest Investigation

SIT........................................................... Special Investigation Team

STF............................................................ Special Task Force

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

3
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

The Constitution of Indiana.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Indian Kanoon.

TABLE OF CASES

Arun vs State of Maharashtra (1977)15 MHLJ315…………………….

Megh Raj vs Zakir (1876)…………………………………………….

Sukumar vs state AIR 1965 Cal 622…………………………………..

Lakshman vs state of Orissa 2001 (1) OLR76…………………………

State of MP vs Mishri Lal (2003)9SCC 426………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

4
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has the jurisdiction in this matter under

Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana which reads as follows:

“ARTICLE 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 writ 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 .”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

5
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020
The union of Indiana is the largest democracy in the world the country gain its independence in
1947 from the British rule after the struggle of 200 years the constitution of India come into
force on 26 January 1950 and is the supreme law of land.

supreme court of UOI is the highest interpreter of law in the country. Uttam pradesh in the
Northern province of Indiana is 4th most populated state in the country the crime rate as per
NCRB source police improved law and order in Uttam pradesh in comparison to other states
having highest population.

Aakash Dubey handloom at front a history sheater and a gangster turned politician was
indicated for a number of crimes where in some 62 criminal cases he was the prime accused.
The name of few criminal cases which were registered against him were robbery ,criminal
intimidation ,kidnapping which all are serious in nature. Being a powerful gangster he had the
dominance over the locals and also good contact with local police man. It was reported that the
policeman of nearest police station used to visit. He loved to be called as Aakash pandit more
than Aakash Dubey.

He had kiilled minister of the state Rantosh Shukla who was killed brutally inside the rivli
police station surprisingly he got acquitted from the lower court. On third of July a team of 30
police man went to pikaro village Manpur to arrest Aakash Dubey. Because of his good
contacts in the nearest police station and nearby he was tipped off about that. Before the arrival
of police he got the electricity cut in the area and use the Earth movers in blocking the police
vehicles. Dubey and his men killed 8 police man living 7 injured in a planned Ambush. After
this incident Aakash Dubey was nowhere to be found his uncle and cousin was shot down.
Dubey’s house was rushed down using the sum Earth movers as aforesaid. Mallu Aka who is
believed to be close aide to Aakash Dubey he confessed to do they being tipped off about Raid
by an insider from the police station.

On 9th July Aakash Dubey was arrested in Ujjain. He reportedly drove from Manpur Uttam
pradesh to dariyabad Baryana to Khota Ranisthan and finally went to Mahakal temple in
Madhyam Pradesh. Aakash Dubey was handed over by Madhyam Pradesh police to Uttam
pradesh police. He was being brought back to Manpur by Uttam pradesh police.
On 10th July Aakash Dubey was reportedly killed in an encounter. The police alleged that the
head of cows and buffaloes came in the way out of nowhere resulting in the vehicle to turnover.
An opportunity to do we try to escape when he was shot down. However police justify their act
by standing that it was a normal covid-19 checkup for which media was stopped.
The director general of police MP Sinha stated in intervie encounter are part of crime
prevention. The fact is that this is not a state policy but a police strategy. We did not call it to
encounter but police engagement we are engaged with criminal in a very professional and
strategic management. However the Uttam pradesh government reject all the demands of
formation of special investigation team to examine this case for independent and fair
investigating committee as SIT.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

6
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) whether the PIL filed is maintainable?

2) whether the act of police was justifiable?

3) whether Akash Dubey was absconding?

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

7
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1)whether the PIL filed is maintainable?

The period filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Because after the sensing and opportunity
Aakash dubey try to escape and snatching a weapon from one of the officer of police and
starting firing towards them then the police officers was fire in their self defence. Section 46 of
CrPC of sizes the police to use 46 turning up to the cause of death as may be accused of an
offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

There is not any violation of article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution according to police the pathway
of a press was not blocked by police it was blocked due to the routine check up of covid-19.

ISSUE 2 )whether the actor police was justifiable?

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
8
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

The act of police was justifiable because they were doing the act in their color of duty. They
were doing their job. Because sensing the opportunity Akash Dubey try to escape and also
snached gun of one of police officer and started firing against them. They do not have any
intention to encountered him but when Akash Dubey was tried to escape and starting fighting
against them then the police officer was encountered him in their private defence.

ISSUE 3)whether Akash Dubey was absconding or not?

Aakash dubey was absconding. Because sensing a opportunity Dubey tried to escape and also
start firing towards the police officer the police officer encounted him in private defence. If there
is any danger to the life the person has the right to the whatever the act in his private defence this
was a statement given by the the case in MP vs Mishri Lal.

ADVANCE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 Whether the PIL filed is maintainable or not ?

It is to be humbly submitted before this hon'ble supreme court that,

The PIL filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. According to the police, the Uttam pradesh
Special Task Force (STF) was bringing him back to Manpur from Madhya Pradesh ,herd of cows
and buffaloes came in the way out of nowhere, resulting in the vehicle to turn over. Sensing an
opportunity Aakash dubey tried to escape after snatching a weapon from one of the officer and
starting firing towards them then the police officers was fire in their self defence.

That means if the circumstances shows that there is imminent threat of danger to life then the
person have the right to act in accordance with the section 100 of the Indian penal code and here
in the present case the police officers had fired toward the dube because Dubey was started firing
towards them and there is imminent threat of danger to life of all the police officer.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

9
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020
NHRC Guidelines

In March 1997, Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah (the then chairperson of the NHRC), in the
backdrop of increased complaints from the general public and non-governmental organisations
related to instances of fake encounters by the police underlined that the police have not been
conferred with any right to take away someone's life, except under two circumstances:

-If the death is caused in the exercise of the right to private defence,

-Section-46 of the CrPC that authorises the police to use force, extending up to the causing of
death, as may be accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Here in the present case both the circumstances are fulfilled. The police officer encountered
Aakash dubey because he was an accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and also start firing towards the police officers.

According to section 99 of Indian penal code 1860 there is no right of private defence against an
act which done or attempting to be done by public servant acting in good faith and the colour of
his duty.

Here in the present case the police officers was employed under their call of duty.

In the case of Arun vs state of Maharashtra1 it was held that in order to claim whether the right
of private defence extends to voluntary causing obtained accused must show that there were
circumstances giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous
hurt would be caused to him and there in the present case firing by I accuse aakash dubey was
shows that there are apprehension of instant death or grievous hurt to the police officers.

In the case of meghraj vs zakir2 the Allahabad high court held that no person acting judicially is
liable for an act done or order to be done in discharge of his official duty within the limits of his
jurisdiction.

So, the PIL filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.

According to them the pathway of of press was not blocked by police it was blocked due to the
routine covid-19 checkup.

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1454458/

2
https://www.legitquest.com/case/behari-lal-goklaney-v-state-of-punjab/B6418

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

10
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

ISSUE 2- whether the act of police was justifiable?

The act of police was justifiable because they were doing the act in their color of duty. They
were doing their job. When Aakash dubey was arrested and handed over by Madhyam Pradesh
police to Uttam Pradesh police. He was being brought back to manpur by uttam Pradesh police.
But when cows and buffaloes come in the way out of nowhere, resulting in the vehicle to turn
over. Sensing and opportunity Dubey tried to escape and also snatched gun of one of the police
officer and starting firing against the police officers. They do not have any intention to
encountered him, but when Aakash dubey was tried to escape and also starting firing against
them then the police officer were encountered him in their private defence.

Director general of police MP Sinha has also formulate defendant action of his men. He stated in
interview that encounter a part of crime prevention the fact is that this is not a state policy but a
police strategy we do not call it encounter by police engagement we are engaged with criminals
in every professional and strategic manner.

In the case of Sukumaran vs state3 it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove their
main case the offence under section 203 IPC must fail. It is also for the reason because we have
held that appellant was justified in taking a plea of self defence against the deceased party which
he was also being able to prove with the aid of evidence. And the court fnally held that the act of
the police was in private defence and there is no fake encounter in the case.

Aakash dubey was become a big threat to the society. On 3rd July 2020 a city manpur in a state
of uttam Pradesh show an act of brutality where 8 policemen were killed vehementhly. This act
was executed by gangster Akash dubey and his gang. Akash dubey are handloom action aahista
3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191613310/

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

11
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020
seater and against certain politicians was indicated for number of crimes where in some 62
criminal cases he was the prime accused. Some of the cases which were registered against him
were murder robbery criminal intimidation kidnapping accept which all are heinous.the first
criminal case against him was registered in 1990.out of all he come into headlines when he
murdered the then minister of state Rantosh Shukla who was killed brutally inside the rivli police
station. Surprisingly he got aquitted from the lower court then. No doubt if the police officer
were not defend themself and encountered in their private defence, akash dubey will again killed
them all.

In the case of Laxman vs state of Orissa4 it was held that the right of private defence is
available only to one who is sudden confronted with the necessity of inverting and impending
danger.

And in the present case the police officers were in imminent threat to danger of the life show the
act of police officer was justifiable.

4
https://www.legitquest.com/case/laxman-mohapatra-v-state-of-orissa/D7571

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

12
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

ISSUE 3-Whether aakash dubey was absconding or not ?

Aakash dubey was absconding.the police alleged that the herd of cows and buffaloes come in the
way out of now where is resulting in the vehicle to turn over. Sensing an opportunity dube tried
to escape also known as the gun of an officer and start firing towards the police officer. The
police officer encountered him in the private defence.

The statement given by the petitioner that dube could not escape by running because video
shows of him in Ujjain show him limping. The police denied this fact by stating that dubey fast
and travel across state in a short span of time was testimony of his perfect mobility.

The reason why the gun shot was found on his chest not on his back that it was a close "face to
face exchange" of fire. The police said with their team firing 6 round at him when he did not
surrender three bullets hit dube who according to the affidavit facing the policeman fired 9 round
at them. This is the reason why there is no bullet injury on his back the police explain rejecting
theories of fake encounter.

In the case of state of MP vs Mishri lal5 there was firing between prosecution party and accused
party father of one of the accused received 5 injuries which were dangerous to his life his son
apprehending danger to the life or his father fire gun shot at that point of time in self-defence.

The the court held that if there is any danger to the life the person has the right to do whatever
the act in his private defence.

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14206/

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

13
 MOOT COURT MEMORIAL,2020

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the
respondent humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudged, hold and declare:-

1) That the PIL is not maintainable in the court of law.

2)That the police personals are awarded for their duty full work.

3)That the family members of police personals are given protection against mafia.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the counsel for the petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS
RESPECTFULLY
__________________
____________

__________________
_____________

SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR
THE RESPONDED

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

14