Respondent Memo

TEAM CODE: NMDC/L/058
THE “L” WORD BLOG 1st NATIONAL MEMORIAL DRAFTING COMPETITION, 2020
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____OF 2020
YUVA SHAKTI MORCHA…………………………………………………PETITIONER
Versus
TARAN KOHAR & ORS.…………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………….4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………....6
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………...9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………….......11
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT……………………………………………11
1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE....12
1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT…12
2. WHETHER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 109 & 306 OF THE SINDIAN
PENAL CODE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT…………………………………..13
2.1. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PROVEN ACT OF INTENTIONAL

INSTIGATION BY THE RESPONDENTS? …………………………………….14
2.2 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE ON THE

PART OF THE RESPONDENTS………………………………………………15
3. WHETHER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 504 AND 506 OF SINDIAN PENAL
CODE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT…………………………………………….16
3.1 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT ON THE PART OF THE
RESPONDENTS, AMOUNTING TO INTENDED INSULT CAUSING
PROVOCATION,UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE IOC?...................................17
Page | 2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

3.2 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT AMOUNTING TO CRIMINAL
INTIMIDATION UNDER SECTION 503 OF SPC?.............................................18
4. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF DEFAMATION ON PART OF THE

RESPONDENT?.....................................................................................................................19
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………….....21
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter

SPC Sindian Penal Code
Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter

Cal Calcutta High Court
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Del. Delhi
DLR Delhi Law Review
DLT Delhi Law Times
Edn. Edition
Guj. Gujarat
ILR Indian Law Reports
IPC Indian Penal Code
IC Indian Cases
JT Judgment Today
Mad Madras
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

Ori Orissa
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
Pat Patna
Raj Rajasthan
RCR Recent Criminal Reports
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
U.O.I. Union Of India
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
 State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.
 Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.
 Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.
 State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).

 Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169.
 P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors. , (1980) 3 SCC 141
 Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815.

 Shri Ram and another, 1975 (2) S.C.R. 622

 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605
 Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2001) 9 SCC 618.
 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 AIR(SC) 512,
 State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal 2004 ALL SCR (Cri) 94
 Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129
 Gcngula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2010) 1 SCC 750
 Amulya Kumar Behera vs. Nabhagana Behera Alias Nabina (1995) CrLJ 3559.
BOOKS
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal‟s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal‟s Law of Crimes – A Commentary on The Indian Penal Code, Vol
II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.
 K I Vibhute, P.S.A Pillai‟s Criminal law, Lexis Nexis, 12th Edn. 2014.
 Dr. (Sir) Hari Singh Gour, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 11th
Edn. 2014.
 Basu‟s Indian Penal Code (Law of Crimes), Vol I., Ashoka Law House, 11th Edn. 2011.
 Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2015.
STATUTES
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Constitution of India, 1949.

LEGAL DATABASES
 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 Indian Kanoon
 Indian Courts Cases
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Sindia under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Sindia. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of
this Hon‟ble Court. The article 136 of Constitution of Sindia reads as hereunder:
“SECTION 136: SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.
(1) Notwithstanding Anything In This Chapter, The Supreme Court May, In Its Discretion, Grant
Special Leave To Appeal From Any Judgment, Decree, Determination, Sentence Or
Order In Any Cause Or Matter Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal In The Territory Of
India.
(2) Nothing In Clause (1) Shall Apply To Any Judgment, Determination, Sentence Or Order
Passed Or Made By Any Court Or Tribunal Constituted By Or Under Any Law Relating To The
Armed Forces.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows:

Mr. Anirudh Singh was a renowned actor in the Shollywood film industry in Sindia. He was a
jovial man and never cared for what his peers think of him. He always followed his own will and
took his decision without any societal pressures. He was always fond of theatre and acting and thus
developed a deep zeal to pursue his career in acting.
He started off his career in 2012 as a struggling Television actor. Due to his immense talent and
acting skills, he was soon recognized as a budding „star face‟ in the industry. During his journey in
the television industry, he won many awards and praises. It was the result of his hard-work that in
2014, he was launched on the big screen with his debut movie. His very first movie was a huge hit
and unlike many other struggling artists, he earned his fame and started getting offers for various
movies with some already established costars.
But no matter how many praises he was getting, some stars who were, in fact, the products of
”Nepotism‟ (“Nepo kids‟ hereinafter) in the industry never saw him as a colleague , but as a
potential competitor and used their influence in the industry against him, to drive him out of
Shollywood itself.
On 25th March, 2016, a top-tier production house, named Karma Productions, announced publicly,
that they have signed with Mr.Anirudh Singh in three upcoming films , causing all the fans to go
crazy and excited over the news. However, on the influence of the Nepo Kids, Mr. Anirudh Singh
was eventually removed from the films and replaced with the Nepo Kids themselves. In addition to
this, Karma Productions reasoned on Social Media that Mr.Anirudh Singh was replaced, due to his
“undisciplined” and “unprofessional” attitude, but Mr.Anirudh Singh denied these allegations.
The Nepo kids and their puppets in the media industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing blind
articles and blogs on their platforms. Due to this reluctant behavior of some Nepo Kids toward
Anirudh, many producers decided not to cast the newcomer star Anirudh for their movies simply
because they didn‟t want to lose the supports of the established actors.
Even though he was a happy-go-lucky man, this non-acceptance of the industry started to affect
him. Even though there was a huge fan base for him and even after doing several movies, he never
received any awards to which he was nominated even if was the most deserving candidate. Hate
articles and blogs kept that kept coming up slowly started to irk him.

In the beginning of 2020, his tensions and worries deepened due to the fact that his seven signed
movies were taken back by the producers without any genuine reason in just two months. The
rumors say that it was because his previous films were not earning much profit. Thus to avoid any
losses, the producers decided to take those movies back. He was deeply depressed and tensed. He
was receiving constant hate messages from unknown people and was also irked by interviewers.
In March 2020, the government of Sindia declared a nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19
pandemic, and consequently the film industry was also halted. Anirudh used to live alone at his flat
and the lockdown further intensified his loneliness. He was distressed and depressed but was not
ready to share it with anyone. But every time when he would decide to come out of this situation,
the ongoing hate trends against him pushed him in the deep traps of depression.
On June 1st 2020, Mr. Anirudh Singh committed suicide in his apartment. The entire shollywood
was shocked, and while everyone was showing their grief through posts on social media so did the
Nepo Kids. Many of these actors were trolled over the social media for their „Fake Concern‟.
“Boycott Nepo Kids” trend was started on the social media which aimed at boycotting all the
products of Nepotism in the shollywood industry.
Meanwhile, a criminal complaint was filed under sections 109, 306, 504, and 506 of the Sindian
Penal Code, 1860, (will be referred as SPC from hereon) against some “Shollywood Biggies”
which included Arman Khan a renowned star of the industry along with some “Nepo Kids”
alleging them to have created such distressful situations around the actor that drained his mental
strength and instigated him to commit to suicide. However, the Session Court acquitted all the
accused for the lack of evidence or witness to support the arguments.
After their acquittal, many other struggling actors started to raise their voices against the Nepo
Kids and shared how they have also experienced such treatment from the Nepo Kids themselves.
Now, keeping into mind the gravity of the matter and the involvement of big-screen popular faces,
a Special Leave Petition is filed in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Sindia under Article 136 of the
Sindian Constitution challenging the verdict of the session court seeking an order to give justice to
the victim actor. The petition also seeks some guidelines by the Hon‟ble Apex Court to regulate
growing nepotism in the Shollywood Industry to avoid such suicidal tendencies in the future.

Considering the significance of the issue, a three-judge bench is constituted by the Supreme Court
of Sindia to decide the case.
ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
CODE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

RESPONDENT?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Sindia that the instant
petition is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been
done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. In the present
case no exceptional and special circumstances exist and substantial justice has already been done
It is contended by the respondents that no substantial question of law is involved in the present
case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. This
court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be applied in determining the
question of those principles the question would not be a substantial question of law.
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and special
circumstances which exist. The appellants are convicted of a heinous offence and this petition filed
by the appellants is a mere vexatious attempt by them. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is most humbly submitted before this hon‟ble court that, the charges under sections 109 and 306
of the Sindian Penal Code filed against the Respondents, are not maintainable, and are entitled to
be dismissed.
Section 109 of the SPC reads that, “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offense.”
Even though Section 109 talks about the punishment for abetment of any offence, its applicability
relies on Section 107., it defines what amounts to an act of Abetment, and thus, the maintainability
of charges under Sections 109 and 306 against the Respondent in the present case, depend on the
satisfaction of Section 107‟s constituents of Abetment.
The acts of the Respondents do not amount to Abetment, owing to the essential constituents of
Abetment, as listed out in Sec 107 of the SPC.
Also, sec 306 discusses about the punishment for Abetment of Suicide and , and since there was no
material evidence submitted by the petitioners in regard of the same, there was no intentional
instigation on the part of the respondents, as required by many Supreme Court rulings, for it to be
considered as Abetment of suicide.
3. WHETHER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 504 AND 506 OF THE SINDIAN
PENAL CODE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most respectfully submitted before this hon‟ble court that, the charges files against the
Respondent under sections 504 and 506 are not maintainable.
Firstly, it is to be noted that, charges under section 504 deal with claims against the respondent,
relating to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and its punishment.
It is contended that, from the very definition of the Section, it is derived that there are certain
requisites or conditions to be fulfilled for an act or a statement to be considered as an offense under
Section 504 of the SPC. It is factually clear that, in the given case, those essentials aren‟t fulfilled.
Also, there was no evidence on the part of the petitioners, proving the direct link or intent of the
Respondent, in the suicide of Mr. Anirudh Singh, hence, disproving the allegations against the
respondent.

RESPONDENT?
It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that, there was no act on the part of the
respondents that amounted to any for form defamation in any manner.

The concept of defamation is discussed under Section 499, where the definition, essential
components and exceptions or defenses against defamation are enlisted. By virtue of this section, it
is clear that no action of the respondents amount to defamation, nor do they fulfill the required
essentials enlisted in the same section.
In fact, it is contended that the comments of the respondents stating Mr. Anirudh Singh to be
“undisciplined” and “unprofessional” come under the exceptions of fair and bonafide comments,
and also, there was no intention proven by the petitioners, hence, not holding any valid claims
against the respondents. Therefore, the actions of the respondents do not attract charges under
Sections 499 and 500 of the SPC.
Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the case prove that there was indeed, no
defamation, it is humbly submitted before this hon‟ble court that, charges under the same are not
maintainable, and are ought to be dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is most respectfully submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Sindia that the Special
Leave Petition is not maintainable and cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done
and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. It will not be granted
if there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done. Article 136 does not give a right
to a party to appeal to SC rather it confers wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in
suitable cases1.
Also in the present case, no substantial question of law is involved and interference is based on
pure question of fact which is entitled to be dismissed. A mere existence of substantial question of
fact is not sufficient unless serious injustice of the substantial nature has been occasioned 2.
The Supreme Court, however, does not grant leave to appeal in criminal matters liberally. It does
so only when exceptional and special circumstances exist, substantial and grave injustice has been
done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the
decision appealed against, or there has been a departure from legal procedure such as vitiates the
1
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
2
Hon‟ble Justice Bhanwar Singh, Criminal Appeals, JTRI Journal, 1995.

whole trial, or if the findings of fact “were such as shocking” to the judicial conscience of the
Court3
1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
The petitioner contends that in the present case no exceptional and special circumstances
exist and substantial justice has already been done by the Sessions Court. The appellant
must show that exceptional and special circumstances exist and that if there is no
interference, substantial and grave injustice will be done to the appellant 4. Only then the
court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 1365
Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial
justice is done, though the decision suffers from some legal errors6
The court has emphasized in Pritam Singh v. The State7 that, “ The only uniform standard
which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances in that Court should grant
special leave to appeal in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist”. The
court shall interfere with the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or
grave injustice or other recognized grounds are made out8.
It was also observed that, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 136. It being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally, has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in
special and extraordinary situations 9. Article 136 does not give a right to a party to appeal to
the SC rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere in suitable cases 10.
In the present case the appellants have been unsuccessful to show any exceptional and
special circumstances which exist. Hence, the petition is entitled to be dismissed.
3
State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.
4
Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.
5
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LexisNexis, Nagpur, 7th Edn. 2014.
6
State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).
7
Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169.
8
Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 223.
9
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, (1955) AIR 65 (SC).
10
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm & Ors. , (1980) 3 SCC 141.

1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE.

It is contended by the respondents that no substantial question of law is involved in the
present case and the interference is based on pure question of fact which is entitled to be
dismissed. This court had laid down the test which says if the general principles to be
applied in determining the question of those principles the question would not be a
substantial question of law.
It might involve question of law but not „substantial‟ question of law. The present case does
not involve such „substantial‟ question of law.
In Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai11 the court emphasized
that, “the very conferment of the discretionary power defies any attempt at exhaustive
definition of power. The power is permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in
very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance
arises or a decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the
conscience. This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court to
be exercised sparingly and only in the furtherance of cause of justice in the Supreme Court
in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist”.
It is most humbly submitted before this hon‟ble court that, the charges under sections 109 and 306
of the Sindian Penal Code filed against the Respondents, are not maintainable, and are entitled to be
dismissed.
Firstly, it is to be noted that, the Respondent is being accused of abetting Mr.Anirudh Singh‟s
suicide, and section 109 of the SPC reads that, “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted
is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offense.”
Even though Section 109 talks about the punishment for abetment of any offence, its applicability
relies on Section 107., it defines what amounts to an act of Abetment, and thus, the maintainability
of charges under Sections 109 and 306 against the Respondent in the present case, depend on the
satisfaction of Section 107‟s constituents of Abetment.
11
Jamshed Hormsuji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai AIR 2004 SC 1815.

According to Section 107, Abetment is constituted by:
1) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or
2) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or
3) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

It is contended by the Respondents that, none of the above constituents were proven to be performed
by the respondents, with any evidence, by the Petitioner. And it is also to be noted that, for an
individual to be considered liable for Abetment, and so as to proceed against an individual for a
criminal offense under Section 107, prosecution must claim the component of Mens Rea.
The Supreme Court observed that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have
“intentionally” aided the commission of the crime. “Mere proof that the crime charged could not
have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with
the requirements of Section 107”. 12
So as to establish abetment, the abettor must have appeared to “deliberately” support the
commission of the wrongdoing, which is not the case here. Since there is no material evidence
submitted by the Petitioners, substantiating their claims under Sections 109 and hence, 306, the
Respondents contend that the charges under these sections deem fit to be dismissed.
2.1. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PROVEN ACT OF INTENTIONAL
INSTIGATION BY THE RESPONDENTS?
It is most humbly submitted that, there were no evidentially proven acts of intentional
instigation, on the part of the Respondents, amounting to abetment of Mr.Anirudh Singh‟s
suicide. No acts of the Respondents came under the purview of the concept of Abetment,
hence, dismissing the charges of Sec 109 of SPC.
In fact, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”.
The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing
of an act by the latter. Each person‟s suicidability pattern is different from the other. 13
Hence, it is contended by the Respondents that, each person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in
12
Shri Ram and another, 1975 (2) S.C.R. 622,
13
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605

dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
In many other following cases, the Supreme Court reiterated the actual meaning of
Abetment, and held that “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage doing „an act‟14
2.2. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF ABETMENT TO SUICIDE ON THE
PART OF THE RESPONDENTS
The non-applicability of Sec 306 of the SPC can be proven, owing to the non-
applicability of the Sections 107 and 109, itself. If there was no abetment at all, there can
be no abetment to suicide.
According to sec 306 of the SPC, If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
However, in the present case, there was no actual evidence supporting the claims of the
Petitioner under Sec 306, in the Sessions Court. Hence, the hearsay claims and allegations
cannot be held as requisite grounds to charge the Respondent under Sections 109 and 306
of the SPC.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after considering various earlier judgments, observed that,
“Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of
an offence under Section 306 SPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find
out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no
other alternative but to put an end to her life. In order to bring a case within the purview
of Section 306 of SPC 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 SPC.”15
It was once observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
14
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2001) 9 SCC 618.
15
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 AIR(SC) 512,

finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life
by committing suicide.If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive or ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite
common to the society to which the victim belongs and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstances individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty.”16
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also reiterated the legal position as regards Section 306
SPC. Abetment involves a mental process of instigation a person or intentionally aiding
that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental
process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can
be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can
be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 SPC.17
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 306 SPC held that “Abetment involves a mental
process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and
without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,
there cannot be any conviction. It was further held that to attract Section 306 SPC there
has to be a clear mens tea to commit the offence.” 18
3. WHETHER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF SINDIAN PENAL
CODE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.
It is most respectfully submitted before this hon‟ble court that, the charges files against the
Respondent under sections 504 and 506 are not maintainable.
Firstly, it is to be noted that, charges under section 504 deal with claims against the respondent,
relating to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and its punishment.
It is contended that, from the very definition of the Section, it is derived that there are certain
requisites or conditions to be fulfilled for an act or a statement to be considered as an offense
under Section 504 of the SPC. They are:
16
State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal 2004 ALL SCR (Cri) 94
17
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129
18
Gcngula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2010) 1 SCC 750

 Intention to insult another party;

 Causing provocation to him;
 Knowledge that such an act or statement is likely to break public peace or cause him to
commit an offense.
It is factually clear that, in the given case, the abovementioned essentials aren‟t fulfilled. The
intent on the part of the defendants, to insult and to provoke, Mr. Anirudh Singh, is not
evidentially proven by the Petitioners. Also, there is no evidence connecting any link between the
suicide of Mr. Anirudh Singh and the Respondents‟ alleged intentional insult causing him the
provocation. Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that charges under section 504 is not
maintainable.
Secondly, it is to be noted that, charges under section 506 deals with punishment for criminal
intimidation, and section 503 of the same code, defines what Criminal intimidation is and its
essentials.
The offence of criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 of the Sindian Penal Code,
1860. The provision states that anyone who threatens any other person on the following grounds is
liable for criminal intimidation:
 Threatens injury to his person;
 Threatens injury to his reputation;
 Threatens injury to his property;
 Threatens injury to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the person is interested.
Further, the intention should be to cause “alarm” ** to that person; or to make them perform any
act which they are not legally bound to do; or to omit any act which they are legally entitled to
perform. If they are forced to do all of these acts as a means to avoid execution of such threat, this
amounts to criminal intimidation.
It is clear from the facts of the case, that there was no evidence proving such threats or any act by
the respondents, amounting to Criminal Intimidation under Section 503 of the SPC. Therefore
since the essentials under the section are not fulfilled, it is hereby contended by the Respondents
that, charges under section 506 is also not maintainable.
3.1 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT ON THE PART OF THE
RESPONDENTS, AMOUNTING TO INTENDED INSULT CAUSING
PROVOCATION,UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE IOC?
It is humbly submitted before this hon‟ble court that, there was no act on the part of the
respondents that amounted to an offence under sec 504 of the SPC.

There was no evidence produced by the petitioners, proving the performance of any act of
the respondent, with knowledge, that insulted Mr. Anirudh Singh, and provoked him,
hence causing his suicide.
It is contended by the respondents that, no one can and should be convicted of an offence,
based on an allegation, based without any evidence.
It is to be noted that, none of the acts of the respondents come under the purview of section
504 of the SPC.
The requirement of Section 504, is that there should be an intentional insult which causes
provocation. The provocation should be intended or known to be likely to cause the person
insulted to commit breach of public peace or to commit any other offence. It is clear that
mere abuse or even hurling of intentional insults and causing provocation thereby would
not constitute an offence under Section 504, SPC It is necessary that insults by which
provocation is caused should either be intended or known to be likely to lead to a breach of
the public peace or the commission of some other offence by the person insulted. The
intention is a very necessary part of the offence. Without it, the insults, however
provocation they may be, will not bring the offender' within the mischief of Section 504,
SPC. 19
3.2 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT AMOUNTING TO CRIMINAL
INTIMIDATION UNDER SECTION 503 OF SPC?
respondent that can be considered to amount to criminal intimidation.
It is to be noted that, none of the acts of the respondent come under the purview of the
definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503, and thus, are not entitled to
punishment under Section 506 of the SPC. Also, there was no evidence submitted by the
petitioners, substantiating their claims.
Further, the court observed that ** the mere expression of any word without any intention
to cause alarm was not sufficient to be brought under the ambit of Section 506. The Court
also observed that this provision is relatively new, and originally terms like „terror‟ or
„distress‟ had been proposed instead of „alarm. 20
19
Mohammad Sabed Ali vs Thulesvar Borah 1955 CriLJ 1318
20
Amulya Kumar Behera vs. Nabhagana Behera Alias Nabina (1995) CrLJ 3559.

Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that, there was no criminal intimidation as per
section 503, and thus, charges under Section 506 against the respondent are not
maintainable and are entitled to be dismissed.

RESPONDENT?
respondent, that was proven to defame the Petitioner, in any manner, and thus, any allegations or
charges under defamation against the respondents are not maintainable, and are entitled to be
dismissed.
It is to be noted that section 499 of the SPC deals with Defamation, and the definition, essentials as
well as exceptions to a suit of defamation are listed under the same section.
From the definition, the essential conditions to be fulfilled, for an act to be considered as
defamation, can be derived. They are:
 The Statement should be made
 The Statement must refer to the plaintiff-
 The Statement must be defamatory-
 The intention of the wrongdoer-
 The Statement should be false-
 The Statement should not be privileged-
 The Statement must be published-
 The Statement must cause injury
From the above essentials, it is clear that, even though there were statements such as
“undisciplined” and “unprofessional” made by the respondents, there is no evidence proving the
fulfillment of all the essentials required by Section 499, and hence, no evidence to substantiate the
claim of defamation.
It is also to be noted that, liability to be sued or prosecuted for defamation, arising under the
General rules applicable on the subject, may still not arise where the circumstances are such that
there is a legally recognized defense to such a suit or prosecution. The most important and relevant
defenses so arising are fair bonafide comment.
It is contended by the respondents that, the statements made by the respondents were merely fair
and bonafide comments, and made in good faith, without any intention to defame Mr. Anirudh
Singh. It is to be noted that, the petitioners do not have any evidence proving the intention of the

respondents, to defame Mr. Anirudh Singh, and without proof of intention, the charges of
Defamation are not maintainable.
Nothing is defamatory which is a fair comment in the matter of public interest. The respondent can
avail this defense when he has merely made a fair comment in a matter of public interest. This
defense is based on public policy which gives every person the right to comment and criticize
without any malicious intention the work or activities of public offices, actors, authors and
athletes as well as those whose career is based on public attention. Any fair and honest opinion
on a matter of public interest is also protected even though it is not true. There is no definition of a
matter of public interest. Generally, a matter of public interest can is a subject which invites public
attention or is open to public discussion or criticism.
Therefore, it is contended by the respondents, that, since the act of the respondents do not
particularly come under the purview of defamation, under Sections 499 and 500 of the SPC, and
that the comments are justified under the exception of fair and bonafide comment, and hence, it
does not amount to defamation, and that the charges are not maintainable and entitled to be
dismissed.

PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon‟ble Court
be pleased to:
1. Dismiss this Special Leave Petition.
2. Dismiss charges under sections 109 & 306 of the Sindian penal code and uphold the order
of the sessions Court.
3. Dismiss charges under sections 504 & 506 of the Sindian penal code and uphold the order
of the sessions Court.
4. Dismiss all charges of Defamation, if any.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page | 22 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Respondent Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: NMDC/L/058

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._____OF 2020

YUVA SHAKTI MORCHA…………………………………………………PETITIONER

TARAN KOHAR & ORS.…………………………………………………..RESPONDENT

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT……………………………………………11

1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE....12

1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT…12

2.1. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PROVEN ACT OF INTENTIONAL

2.2 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF ABETMENT OF SUICIDE ON THE

3.1 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT ON THE PART OF THE

RESPONDENTS, AMOUNTING TO INTENDED INSULT CAUSING

PROVOCATION,UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE IOC?...................................17

Page | 2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

3.2 WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT AMOUNTING TO CRIMINAL

INTIMIDATION UNDER SECTION 503 OF SPC?.............................................18

4. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF DEFAMATION ON PART OF THE

AIR All India Reporter

Bom. LR Bombay Law Reporter

CBI Central Bureau of Investigation

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

DLR Delhi Law Review

DLT Delhi Law Times

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code

NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

Page | 3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

 State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.

 Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 380.

 State of H. P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, (1992) AIR 1277 (SC).

Page | 4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

 Shri Ram and another, 1975 (2) S.C.R. 622

I, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.

II, Bharat Law House, Delhi, 27th Edn. 2013.

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 The Constitution of India, 1949.

Page | 5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

 Indian Courts Cases

“SECTION 136: SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Page | 6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

Page | 7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

Page | 8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

4. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF DEFAMATION ON PART OF THE

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS

Page | 9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

4. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACT OF DEFAMATION ON PART OF THE

Page | 10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

Page | 11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

1.1 NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTS AND

Page | 12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE REPONDENT

1.2 NO SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE.