MC Respondent

III JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Team: - JUMCC312
3rd JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.
IN THE HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF INDIANA …………………………………PETITIONER
VS
ARAMBH………………………………………… RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIANA.
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT....................................................................................02
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................03
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................04
❖ CASES CITED
❖ BOOKS REFERRED
❖ STATUTES
❖ ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
❖ TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
❖ LEGAL DATABASE
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................09
STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..............................................................................13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................16
PRAYER.........................................................................................................24
Page | 2
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
& AND
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ALL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ART ARTICLE
BOM BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ANR ANOTHER
CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
CBI CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CR.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRI. L. J. / CR. L. J CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
DLR DELHI LAW REVIEW
ED EDITION
HON‟BLE HONORABLE
I.E., THAT IS
I.P.C. INDIAN PENAL CODE
IBID IBIDEM
ID IDEM
ILR INDIAN LAW REPORT
ORS OTHER
RAJ RAJASTHAN
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASE
SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT
Page | 3
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES AND RULES

1.CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
2.INDIANA PENAL CODE, 1860
3.INDIANA EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
4.JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000
5.THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950.
 LIST OF CASES CITED
Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Algupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Karmjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration
State Of Tamil Nadu V. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 Scc 737
Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 Scc 722
Basant Kumar Sarkar V. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd., Air 1964 Sc 1260.
Bengal Immunity Ltd. V. State of Bihar, Air 1956 Sc 661.
Avishek Goenka V. Union of India (2012) 5 Scc 321.
Abuzar Hussain V. State of West Bengal, (2012) 10 Scc 489.
Essa V. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (4) Scale 1.
Balco Employees Union V. Union of India (2002) 2 Scc 333
Roop Chand Adlakha V. Dda, 1989 Supp (1) Scc 116.
M. Nagaraj V. Union of India, Air 2007 Sc 71.
Babloo Parsi V. State of Jharkhand and Another (2008)13 Scc 133.
Abuzar Hossain Alias Gulam Hossain V. State of West Bengal (2012) 10 Scc 489.
Amit Singh V. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 13 Scc 744.
Birad Mal Singhvi V. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp Scc 604.
K.M Nanavati V. the State of Maharashtra 1962 Scr Supl. (1) 567.
Suljina Dhan V. the State of Assam
Mahmood V. State Air 1961 All 538
Akhtar V. State of U.P. On 28 August, 2014
Amit V. State Of U.P On 23 February, 2012
Page | 4
The State of Maharashtra V. Shankar on 27 June, 2008

Sher Singh @ Sheru V. State of U.P. On 21 September, 2016
Hari Ram V. State of Rajasthan & Anr On 5 May, 2009
Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr V. State Of U.P On 10 July, 2013
The State Of Madhya Pradesh V. Ramesh Nai and Anr. On 14 October, 1974
Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi V. State On 25 September, 2007
Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Ors V. Raju The Member Juvenile Justice ... On 28 March,
2014
Selvi Vs State of Kerala on 30 September, 2008
Prabakaran Vs State of Tamil Nādu On 18 March, 2003
Gopal Nag and Anr. Vs State of Bihar on 11 July, 2000
Nil Ratan Kundu and Another V. Abhijit Kundu .
Sheela Barse & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors. [1986 Air 1773]
Sheela Barse & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. [1986 Scale (2) 230]
Pratap Singh V. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Hari Ram V. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009 Scc 13 211]
Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & Anr. V. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 763 Of
2003]
Sampurna Behura V. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 Of 2005]
Jarnail Singh V. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 1209 Of 2010]
Salil Bali V. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No. 10 Of 2013]
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) Through Legal Guardian - Smt. Rajni Bhati Versus State Of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr.
Mukesh & Ors. V. State of Delhi
Kulai Ibrahim V. State of Coimbatore
Mukesh & Ors V. State of Delhi
Sanjay Suri V. Delhi Administration
Jayendra V. State of Up
Munna V. State of Up
Bhoop Ram V. State of Up
Raj Singh V. State of Haryana
Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2015
Page | 5
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Batuk Lal, the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (central law agency, 2017).
2. Dr. j. n. Pandey, Dr. Surendra Sahai Srivastava (ed.), constitutional law of India (central
law
Agency, 54th edition, 2016).
3. Dr. Narendra Kumar, constitutional law of India (Allahabad law agency, 9th edition, re...
2016).
5. K. D. Gaur, textbook on Indian penal code (universal law publications, 6th edition, 2016).
6. M. P. Jain, Indian constitutional law (lexis Nexis, 8th edition, 2018).
7. P. S. A. Pillai, Dr. K. I. Vibhute, criminal law (lexis Nexis, 12th edition, re. 2016).
8. Natanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian penal code ( lexis Nexis, Nagpur, 30th ed., 2008).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, the code of criminal procedure (lexis Nexis, 22nd edition, 2017).
10. S.N. Mishra, the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (central law publications, 20th edition,
2016).
11. The juvenile justice [care & protection of children] act, 2015 by Ved Kumari (universal
law publishing)
12. Juvenile Justice [care & protection of children] Act, 2015 by EBC‘s.
13. Law Publishers Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) act, 2015 by Srivastava
edition 2022.
14. Delhi law house the protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012 (POCSO) by
Iyer‘s edition 2022
15. Protection of children from sexual offences acts 2012 by Nayan Joshi, Kamal Publishers.
Page | 6
ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

1. Juvenile justice system in India: an appraisal. International Journal of Law, Volume 7,
Issue 1, 2021
2. Study of Juvenile Justice Act and System in India
Sunil Kumar*, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education
3. Characteristics and Trends of Youth Victims of Suicide and Homicide, 2020
4. Becker G. S., ―Crime and punishment: an economic approach‖, (1968).
5. Disruption in Childhood and Risk of Adult Depression", American Journal of Psychiatry,

[160(5): 939–946. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.5.939. PMID 12727699, (May 2003)].
6. Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019, Date Published April 2022 Series OJJDP
National Report Series Agencies NIJ, OJJDP
7. In Focus: Child Protection: Law Enforcement

8. ―I've got to break the cycle for my son, so he doesn't go to juvie like his pops‖: Interrupting
intergenerational patterns of incarceration
9. Police in schools: The complicated impact on students, school environments, and the
juvenile courts
10. Exploring juvenile court outcomes as a function of judge-youth characteristics and

interactions
11. A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
12. Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Characteristics and Patterns of Involvement (Pages:
24-43)
13. Children's Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework (Pages: 68-91)
14. Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry in Juvenile Justice (Pages: 109-130)
James Bell, Raquel Mariscal
15. Adolescent Parents and the Juvenile Justice System: Toward Developmentally and
Sociocultural Based Provision of Services (Pages: 174-196)
Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Karen T. Craddock, LaTasha L. Fermin
Page | 7
LEGAL DATABASE
WEBSITES:
1. Blog.ipleader.in
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
3. https://www.scconline.com
4. https://www.lawctopus.com/
5. https://thelawbrigade.com/criminal-law/juvenile-justice-in-india/
6. Lexisnexis.in
7. Indiankanoon.org
Page | 8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant in the present case has approached the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India to
initiate the present appeal under article 134 of the constitution of Indiana. The respondent
most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the
present matter which is not applicable in S.C because it is not fulfilling the full provision.
Page | 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aayush almost 18 years of age and Snigdha aged around 17 years study in class 12th of St.
Pascalisca School in the city named Jombia situated in the Republic of Indiana and have been
dating each other for almost a year now and all of their friends know about the fact that they
are romantically involved, their very close friend Arambh who studies with them in the same
class is jealous of this relationship as he likes Snigdha. Everyone including Aayush and
Snigdha knows about Arambh's feelings and often' teases him, but Aayush was a school bully
and had quite a temper, hence no one dared to approach Snigdha including Arambh.
On 31st May Aayush decided to host his pre-birthday party for his friends at his house, as his
parents were out of town. Since his birthday falls on 1st June and he is turning 18 he decided
that he will call his friends for a night party including Snigdha and Arambh.
That around 10.30 in the night most of his friends decided to leave the party and only a few
including Snigdha and Arambh were left and the party continued till midnight with loud
music being played.
Arambh started approaching Snigdha and offered her a drink from his glass which she
refused and still Arambh continued his advances on Snigdha. Around the same time Aayush
and Ärambh got into a physical fight as Arambh was trying to get close to Snigdha, Aayush
punched him in his liver and he fell unconscious Aayush cursed Arambh and threatened to
kill him right then and there.
Literally shaken Snigdha had to get in between to stop Aayush and around 11:10 pm Aayush
took Snigdha to his room, after nearly an hour his other friends also left the party and the next
morning Snigdha complained to her parents when she came back from the party that she has
been molested and raped by Aayush after they went to his room, at the party.
That being extremely furious and enraged her parents lodged a complaint against Aayush and
police went to Aayush house and found the dead body of Arambh on the roof of house.
The Autopsy report of Arambh mentioned liver injury and alcohol poisoning. The forensic
report of Snigdha found no traces of physical injury on her body.
And subsequently, an FIR was registered by the Police Station of Jombia on a written report
given by PW/ I Snigdha on 1.6.2020: The FIR was registered. After the investigation, the
Page | 10
police filed a charge sheet against Aayush for the offense under Sections, 300 & 376 IPC and
Section 3/4, of POCSO Act, 2012,2019 before the Court of Magistrate Class-I, Jombia,
during the investigation the police found out that the mark sheet of 10th class of Aayush
recorded the date of birth as 1st June 2003.
Thereafter aggrieved by this, Aayush filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
High Court of Jombia seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet on the ground that the
accused-petitioner is a minor aged 17 years at the time of the incident and at present his date
of birth dated 1st June, 2004 and the investigating agency is trying to show that petitioner is a
major. Further, the Aadhaar card of the accused shows his age. Therefore, the investigation
agency has not done a proper investigation due to media pressure and considered him a major
even though he was a minor. That the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Petition filed under 482 Cr.
P.C was dismissed by the High Court stating:
The disputed questions of fact are involved and, hence, in a petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., it cannot be determined, whether the petitioner was major or minor. Consequently,
no interference is warranted at this stage and the present petition is disposed without
commenting on merits about the age of the petitioner, the Trial court is at liberty to proceed
with the trial as per law and can accept or reject the charge sheet after recording reasons in
writing, the petitioners are at liberty to present their grievances by way of appropriate
application in trial court hence, the petition is disposed off."
After this, the case was committed by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the Court of Sessions
having jurisdiction to hear cases of 'the Special Court of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offenses Act 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005. Learned Trial
Court, thereupon, accepted the charge sheet and framed charges for the offense under
Sections 302, 376 IPC, and Section 3/4, 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, 2019. This was
explained to the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial, thus trial commenced.
The prosecution produced 3 witnesses apart from 15 documents to prove their case. While in
defence, 7 documents were produced. The statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Snigdha turned hostile in her cross-examination and one friend (PW3) also turned hostile in
favour of the accused. While PW4 stated that Aayush is very violent and has regularly been
engaged in lights and violence, he also stated that once a school student was brutally beaten
by Aayush and he was hospitalized for 3 days.
Page | 11
That after hearing the arguments as advanced from the side of prosecution and accused, vis a
vis the material placed on record, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 1.8.2022
convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under Sections 302,376 IPC and Section
3/4, of POCSO Act, 2012.
That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conviction order 1.8.2022 passed by the
learned Trial Court accused preferred to appeal before the Honourable High Court of Jombia
stating that the impugned final order is based on non-consideration and non-appreciation of
evidence and other material on record, and Honourable High Court in appeal acquitted
Aayush from charges of murder of Arambh stating there exists no nexus between them other
than the body being found on his house and police has not conducted a fair investigation in
the matter and for other offenses, High Court remanded the matter to the court below on the
basis of benefit of doubt regarding the age & circumstantial evidence while recording the fact
and recorded that there exists no reason to destroy future of a young man by sending him to
prison and making him a hardened criminal, HC ordered fresh trial with Juvenile Justice
Board giving the benefit of doubt of age to the accused and stating that the trial should have
been in the Juvenile Justice Board.
Aggrieved by the remanding of the matter of the High Court, the state filed a petition in the
Honourable Supreme Court of Indiana seeking indulgence in the matter for quashing the
order of the High Court and reinstating the order of the trial court, the matter is now listed for
arguments at Supreme Court.
Page | 12
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Issue 1 whether high court is right in remanding to juvenile court, when admittedly on
the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly accused
has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
documentary evidences as defence evidence.
Issue 2 whether the high court is right in treating the accused as juvenile when he
attained 18 years of age and when he does not come under the definition of "juvenile in
conflict with law" under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act.
Issue 3 whether high court is right in acquitting the accused from the offence of murder,
when the deceased died of liver injury and alchohal poisoning which was caused by
blows giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous alchohal by the accused.
Issue 4 whether the high court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the "evidences
of eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and "last seen theory" which proved the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
Page | 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
(1) Whether High Court is right in remanding to Juvenile Court, when admittedly on
the date of incident the Accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly accused
has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the Trial Court by way of placing
It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in remanding to Juvenile Court,
when admittedly on the date of incident the Respondent doesn‘t attained 18 years of age as
the Respondent filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Jombia
on the ground that the Respondent is a minor aged 17 years at the time of the incident and at
present his date of birth dated 1st June, 2004 and the investigating agency is trying to show
that Respondent is a major.
(2) Whether the High Court is right in treating the accused as Juvenile when he
attained 18 years of age and when he does not come under the definition of "Juvenile in
conflict with law" under section 2(18) of Juvenile Justice Act.
It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in treating the accused as juvenile
because at the time of incident the Respondent had hosted his pre-birthday party which is on
31st May and at present his date of birth dated 1st June, 2004. The investigating agency had
not done any Ossification test or bone ossification test and the investigating agency is just
trying to show that Respondent is a major.
(3) Whether High Court is right in acquitting the Accused from the offence of murder,
when the deceased died of liver injury and alcohol poisoning which was caused by blows
giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous alcohol by the Accused.
It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in acquitting the Accused from the
offence of murder. The deceased died of liver injury and alcohol poisoning which was caused
by drinking alcohol over the recommended limit which is the biggest cause of
liver disease. This produces harmful chemicals that can damage and kill a liver
cell which leads to death.
Page | 14
(4) Whether the High Court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the "evidences of
eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and "Last Seen theory" which proved the guilt
of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in remanding the matter as there
exists no nexus between them other than the body being found on his house and police has
not conducted a fair investigation in the matter and for other offenses.
Page | 15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1. whether high court is right in remanding to juvenile court, when admittedly on
the date of incident the accused attained 18 years of age and when admittedly accused
has not raised any plea that he is “juvenile " before the trial court by way of placing
I. It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in remanding to Juvenile
Court, when admittedly on the date of incident the Respondent doesn‘t attain 18 years
of age as the Respondent filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High
Court of Jombia on the ground that the Respondent is a minor aged 17 years at the
time of the incident and at present his date of birth dated 1st June, 2004 and the
investigating agency is trying to show that Respondent is a major.
II. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.1 The Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that the
juvenility of a person in conflict with the law has to be reckoned from the date of the
offence and not from the date on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate.
Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the
upper age limit for male children to be considered juveniles was 16 years. But, the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (―JJ Act, 2000‖) treats
children up to 18 years as juveniles. So, the primary issue before the court, in this
case, was, whether JJ Act, 2000 applies to offences that have been committed before
the coming into force of the JJ Act, 2000. The court held that upon conjoint reading of
Sections 2 (k), 2 (l), 7A, 20, and 49, it is made clear that all the persons who were
below the age of 18 years on the date of the commission of the offence even before
the enforcement of JJ Act, 2000, would be treated as juveniles. It would be immaterial
that the claim of juvenility was raised after the accused attained the age of 18 years.
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian - Smt. Rajni Bhati V. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. 3In this case, the court held that where any of the documents
mentioned4 in are submitted in support of the claim of juvenility, then that must be
considered to be conclusive proof of the date of birth of the accused. But, if there is a
doubt and the accused is taking a contradictory stand, then the court could order an
1
Supra
2
[2009 SCC 13 211]
3
(Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2016)
4
Rule 12 (3) (a) (i) to (iii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007
Page | 16
inquiry for the determination of the age of the accused. Such inquiry could include a
medical examination.
III. Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors. 5This case was primarily related to the
implementation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,
and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 6The court observed
that the children are the future of our country and they must be looked after. So, it
issued several directions to ensure proper implementation of the JJ Act, 2015: Central
and State Governments must ensure that all the vacancies in the National Commission
for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for Protection of
Child Rights (SCPCR) are filled for the effective functioning of these statutory
bodies. State-Level Child Protection Societies and District Level Child Protection
Units should take assistance from NGOs and civil society for proper implementation
of the JJ Act. State Government must ensure the filling up of all the positions in the
Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). JJBs and
CWCs must have regular sittings to ensure that there is no backlog of inquiries and
children in need of care & protection are being taken care of. National & State
Commissions for Protection of Child Rights must take up studies on various societal
issues so that the State Government can take remedial steps on those issues. State
Governments must appoint the necessary number of Probation Officers for the
effective implementation of the JJ Act, after getting reports from the NCPCR and
SCPCRs. Special Juvenile Police Units must be set up so that the police can
effectively fulfil their role as the first responder on issues arising out of offences
committed by or against children. National & State Police Academies must consider
including the topics related to child rights in their curriculum. State Governments
were advised to ensure that all the Child Care Institutions 7 are registered so that the
issues of missing children & trafficking are addressed. Eminent Persons from civil
society must be appointed as Visitors by State & UT Governments to monitor &
supervise the CCIs. Members of the Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Protection
Societies, District Child Protection Units, and Special Juvenile Police Units must be
given adequate training and sensitization for the proper implementation of the JJ Act.
All the Chief Justices of the High Courts were urged to consider establishing child-
5
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 473 of 2005]
6
(―JJ Act, 2015‖).
7
(CCIs)
Page | 17
friendly courts & vulnerable witness courts in each district to deal with inquiries
under the JJ Act and trials under POCSO Act, etc.
IV. It is most humbly submitted that Juvenility of a person in conflict with the law has to
be reckoned from the date of the offence and not from the date on which cognizance
was taken by the Magistrate. JJ Act is a beneficial legislation and a technical plea
(like delay in making the claim of juvenility) would not disable a person from making
a claim under the Act. The claim of juvenility can be raised even after the final
disposal of a case. It can be taken up at any stage and any delay in making such a
claim cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim.
Issue 2.whether the high court is right in treating the accused as juvenile when he
attained 18 years of age and when he does not come under the definition of "juvenile in
conflict with law" under section 2(18) of juvenile justice act.
I. It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in treating the accused as
juvenile because at the time of incident the Respondent had hosted his pre-birthday
party which is on 31st May and at present his date of birth dated 1st June, 2004. The
investigating agency had not done any Ossification test or bone ossification test and
the investigating agency is just trying to show that Respondent is a major.
II. Section 6 (a) Juvenile Justice Act,2015
(1) Any person, who has completed eighteen years of age, and is apprehended for
committing an offence when he was below the age of eighteen years, then, such
person shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be treated as a child during the
process of inquiry.
(2) The person referred to in sub-section (1), if not released on bail by the Board shall
be placed in a place of safety during the process of inquiry.
(3) The person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be treated as per the procedure
specified under the provisions of this Act.
Salil Bali v. Union of India & Anr. 8In this case, the petitioners had prayed the court to
strike down the provisions of Section 2 (k) of the JJ Act, 2000. This section defines
Juvenile/Child, as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. The Hon‘ble
Supreme Court discussed the rationale behind the said age limit and observed that the
age of 18 had been fixed based on the understanding of experts in child psychology
and behavioural pattern. So, the court dismissed the appeals by noting that no
8
[Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of 2013]
Page | 18
interference was necessary with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 till sufficient data
is available.
III. Sheela Barse & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 9
In this case, the Hon‘ble Supreme gave the following directions relating to juveniles:
In cases, where a child has been accused of an offence that is punishable with
imprisonment of fewer than 7 years, the investigation must be completed within 3
months from the lodging of the FIR and the trial must be completed within 6 months
from the filing of the charge sheet. Children must not be lodged in jails under any
circumstance. Remand and observation homes must be set up by the State
Governments. If there is no accommodation in these remand or observation homes,
then the children should be released on bail. To ensure complete uniformity, the
Union Government should enact a Children‘s Act for the trial of children below 16
years of age and ensure rehabilitation of such children.
10
IV. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Ors. v. Raju The. Member Juvenile Justice Board &
Anr. In this case, the appellant contended that the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000
(specifically, Sections 1 (4), 2 (k), 2 (l), and 7) must be read down to mean that
juveniles who are mature enough to understand the consequences of their acts and
who commit heinous crimes, must not come under the provisions of the JJ Act11. The
Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed that ‗reading down‘ the provisions of an Act cannot
be resorted to when the meaning of those provisions is plain & clear. There is no
difficulty in understanding the meaning of the provisions of the JJ Act. The Act has
put all persons below the age of 18 in one class/ground to provide a separate scheme
of investigation, trial, and punishment for offences committed by them. So, the court
does not need to read down the provisions.
V. It is most humbly submitted that the growth of any civilization depends upon its
children because they are the future. On the other hand, there are juvenile delinquents
since the beginning of human civilization and in every time-phase it was decided to
treat the cause not the symptoms, that is, to help the juvenile delinquents to help them
through restorative process rather than penalising them.
VI. It is submitted that the legislature has adopted the age of 18 as the dividing line
between juveniles and adults and such a decision is constitutionally permissible, so
9
[1986 SCALE (2) 230]
10
[Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2014]
11
Supra
Page | 19
the enquiry from courts must come to an end. The juvenile here has an undisputed age
of 18 years. This age of 18 years has constitutional relevance to protect the interest of
juveniles from the Criminal liability under the Indiana Penal Code, 1860.
Issue 3. Whether high court is right in acquitting the accused from the offence of
murder, when the deceased died of liver injury and alcohol poisoning which was caused
by blows giving blow on the liver and serving of poisonous alcohol by the accused.
I. It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in acquitting the Accused
from the offence of murder. The deceased died of liver injury and alcohol poisoning
which was caused by drinking alcohol over the recommended limit which is
the biggest cause of liver disease. This produces harmful chemicals that
can damage and kill a liver cell which leads to death.
II. Alcohol is the biggest cause of liver disease. Regularly drinking over the
recommended limit increases the risk of developing liver disease and liver
cancer. Alcohol is broken-down by the liver. This produces harmful chemicals that
can damage and kill liver cells. Although the liver is very good at repairing itself, it
can‘t keep up with the damage from regularly drinking too much alcohol. This can
cause scarring which builds up and leads to cirrhosis.
III. What are the UK alcohol guidelines?
If you drink alcohol, keep the health risks low by following this advice:
 Do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol in a week

 Spread drinking out over several days
 Have 2 to 3 alcohol-free days a week, it‘s even better if they‘re in a row
As well as not drinking too much alcohol in total, it‘s also important not to drink too much in
one session. This can cause immediate harm to your liver, especially if it is already damaged.
It also makes accidents and injuries more likely.
Having some alcohol-free days each week gives your liver a chance to recover. The liver has
a special ability to repair itself, up to a point. Giving it a break from alcohol each week can
help stop damage building up over time and leading to serious liver disease.
IV. Alcohol poisoning is a serious — and sometimes deadly — consequence of drinking

large amounts of alcohol in a short period of time. Drinking too much too quickly can
affect your breathing, heart rate, body temperature and gag reflex and potentially lead
Page | 20
to a coma and death. Alcohol poisoning can also occur when adults or children
accidentally or intentionally drink household products that contain alcohol. A major
cause of alcohol poisoning is binge drinking — a pattern of heavy drinking when a
male rapidly consumes five or more alcoholic drinks within two hours, or a female
rapidly consumes at least four drinks within two hours. An alcohol binge can occur
over hours or last up to several days.
V. In the Justice Verma committee report it was rightly pointed out that our jails are
not well equipped to keep juveniles. It was stated that:
―Our jails do not have reformatory and rehabilitation policies. We do not engage with
inmates as human beings. We do not bring about transformation. We, therefore, breed more
criminals including juveniles) in our prison and reformatory system by ghettoing them in
juvenile homes and protective homes where they are told that the State will protect and
provide for them, but which promise is a fruitless one.”12
VI. Moreover it is submitted that out of the 472 million children in our country, only 1.2
% actually committed crimes in 2012 and 2013. The number of children who
committed serious and heinous crimes was miniscule. In 2013, of all the children
apprehended for crimes under the Indian Penal Code, 2.17% were accused of murder
and 3.5% were accused of rape. That is 2% of 1.2%. These figures of the NCRB,
account for the FIRs registered and not the children who were actually found guilty.
Therefore, it is not justified to treat a juvenile at par with an adult based on one bad
incident.
12
Justice J.S Verma, Justice Leila Seth, Gopal Subramaniam, Report of the Committee on Amendments to
Criminal Law, 2013: Page 276 ¶ 45 available at
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Justice%20verma%20committee/js%20verma%20committe%20report.p
df
Page | 21
Issue 4. Whether the high court is right in remanding the matter ignoring the
"evidences of eye witness", "circumstantial evidence" and "last seen theory" which
proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
I. It is most humbly submitted that the High Court is right in remanding the matter as
there exists no nexus between them other than the body being found on Respondent
house and police has not conducted a fair investigation in the matter and for other
offenses.
II. It is most humbly submitted that at the time of the incident and at present his date of
birth dated 1st June, 2004 and the investigating agency is trying to show that
petitioner is a major. Further, the Aadhaar card of the accused shows his age.
Therefore, the investigation agency has not done a proper investigation due to media
pressure and considered him a major even though he was a minor.
III. .As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no particular numbers of
witnesses are required to prove a fact. The Act gives importance to the principle of
quality than quantity. A conviction can also occur on the basis of the testimony of a
sole witness. As per the Section, the order in which the witnesses are to be produced
shall be regulated by law and the practice. The section further provides that the
witness must be examined as per the civil and criminal procedure.
IV. Algupandi v. State of Tamil Nadu,13it was held that a child is a competent witness if
the statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
V. Karmjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)14 it was held by the court that without
corroboration of other independent witnesses, the testimony of police officials cannot
be solely relied on.
VI. It is most humbly submitted the admissibility of the witness statement is based on the
presumption that the witness speaking under an oath is truthful unless it is proved
beyond reasonable doubt that their testimonies are untruthful and unreliable. It is of
utmost importance that the witnesses are not influenced in any manner so that witness
can provide unbiased and truthful statement which would help in the delivery of fair
judgment. However, in many cases, documentary evidences weaken the oral
13
AIR 2012 SC 2405
14
AIR 2003 SC 1311
Page | 22
evidences as the witness can often be misleading but the documentary evidences have
lesser chances of being inaccurate.
VII. It is most humbly submitted that the direct evidence is obviously stronger than
circumstantial evidence; a jury can still convict someone solely on circumstantial
evidence. However, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to show the
defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean
certainty and that allows the prosecution to meet its burden in cases where it cannot
actually produce an eyewitness or any direct evidence.
Page | 23
PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED
THAT THIS HON‘BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND
DECLARE:
 The following petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable,
 The Juvenility should not depend upon the nature of the offence
committed.
AND COURT MAY PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, OTHER ORDER THAT IT
MAY DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS, APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL HUMBLY
PRAY.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Page | 24

MC Respondent

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

MC Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

III JECRC UTTAM DEVI MOHANLAL KHATUWAALA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

IN THE HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

STATE OF INDIANA …………………………………PETITIONER

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

❖ ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

❖ TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ALL ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

BOM BOMBAY HIGH COURT

CAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CBI CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

CR.P.C CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CRI. L. J. / CR. L. J CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

DLR DELHI LAW REVIEW

I.P.C. INDIAN PENAL CODE

ILR INDIAN LAW REPORT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND RULES

 LIST OF CASES CITED

Rajni Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The State of Maharashtra V. Shankar on 27 June, 2008

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Agency, 54th edition, 2016).

6. M. P. Jain, Indian constitutional law (lexis Nexis, 8th edition, 2018).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS

2. Study of Juvenile Justice Act and System in India

Sunil Kumar*, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education

3. Characteristics and Trends of Youth Victims of Suicide and Homicide, 2020

4. Becker G. S., ―Crime and punishment: an economic approach‖, (1968).

5. Disruption in Childhood and Risk of Adult Depression", American Journal of Psychiatry,

7. In Focus: Child Protection: Law Enforcement

10. Exploring juvenile court outcomes as a function of judge-youth characteristics and

11. A Developmental View of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

13. Children's Rights and Relationships: A Legal Framework (Pages: 68-91)

14. Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry in Juvenile Justice (Pages: 109-130)

James Bell, Raquel Mariscal

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Do not drink more than 14 units of alcohol in a week

IV. Alcohol poisoning is a serious — and sometimes deadly — consequence of drinking

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT