CSLIM2342

____________________________________________________________________________________

1ST CHETTINAD SCHOOL OF LAW INTRA-MOOT COURT

COMPETITION,2023

BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT OF SESSION

In the matter of

THE STATE………..(PROSECUTION)

V.

SHIVANESH…………(DEFENSE)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………….
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………..
STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………
STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………

1) WHETHER SHIVANSH IS LIABLE FOR COMMITTING THE

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376B R/W 90, 354C, 383 OF THE PENAL
CODE…………………………………

2) WHETHER THE POLICE IS LIABLE TO BE ENTANGED FOR THE

CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND ALSO THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
……………………………………………..

3) WHETHER SHIVANSH IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE COMMITTED

UNDER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, 2000…………….

a) Whether the defence is liable under section 66e of the IT act,

2000? ...........................................

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 List of observation

Sec. Section

MNC Multi National Company

FIR First Investigation Report

Anr. Another

IT Information Technology

r/w Read with

ART. Article

IPC Indian Penal Code

Hon’ble Honorable

V. Versus

Ors. Others
 5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lists of cases
1. Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar
2. Krishnan v. state of Kerala
3. State of Punjab v. Ramdev singh

Lists of books

1. Criminal procedure Code (1973); Bare Act

2. Information Technology Act (2000); Bare Act
3. Law of crime (1860); Ratanlal & Dhirrajlal`s
4. Law of crime (1860); Dr. S.R. Myneni

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE HAS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THE

MEMORANDUM OF DEFENSE TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSION UNDER
SECTION 177 READ WITH SECTION 209 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,
1973.

Section 177:
177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

Read with Section 209:

209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by it-
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-
(a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are
to be produced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 7

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This case was held in Aaryavarth, this is an independent country. It is situated in

southeast Asia. This was got independence in 1947. Shivansh was an electronic engineer
working in MNC. After accepting to get marry he has uploaded all his detail in a matrimony
for searching a future wife. He found a girl named Roshni. Shivansh and Roshni started a
conversation and they developed a relationship between them. After few months, both of
them dedicided to get married. They got married according to the Hindu rites and customs.
After one year, Roshni came to know the fact that Shivansh has no ability to give the
birth to child. Shivansh requested Roshni that she need to take the artificial reproductive
technology to have the baby. On the other hand, Roshni wanted to be a natural mother. So she
refuses to undertake the artificial reproductive technology. The parents of Shivansh started
forcing her to support artificial method of pregnancy. Finally, after a huge discussion Roshni
and Shivansh decides to live separately.
Roshni left Shivansh home and he tried to convence her for a period of two months.
But the request was rejected by Roshni.Because of lonliness, Roshni called Shivansh and
invited him to come to her home.On the request made by Roshni, Shivansh visited Roshni
house. Roshni went to make a coffee for Shivansh and because of some intimate conversation
between them, they both had a sexual intercourse. Shivansh went back to his house and called
Roshni and requested her to restart their life. But Roshni didn’t respond and she cut the call.
On the next day morning, she went to police station with a bad health condition. She
files an FIR against Shivansh under section 376B r/w sec 90 of IPC and u/s 34 of IPC against
his parents for mentally harrasing her. After receiving the FIR, the police went to arrest the
Shivansh but, in that place, he is not there then the police has taken his parents to custody for
arrest Shivansh. When Shivansh knows that he quickly reached to police station for
Surrender.
On the day While Shivansh surrender, Roshni got a new friend request in one of the
online platforms. Roshni has accepted the friend request which was from a new unknown
account. After some time that anonymous person forced her to give a hefty of amount inrder
to not share all the image, s that Roshni and Shivansh have taken. After few hours the images
were uploaded into a various online platform. Roshni has a thought that Shivansh has done all
this, then she filed an FIR against Shivansh under IT act, 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 8

1. Whether Shivansh is liable for committing the offence under Section 376B r/w 90, 354C,
383 of the penal code?

2. Whether the police are liable to be entangled for the contravention of Article 21 and
Article 20(3) of the constitution and also the violation of Human Rights?

3. Whether Shivansh is liable for the offence committed under relevant provisions of the IT
Act, 2000?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Whether Shivansh is liable for committing the offence under Section 376B , 354C,
383 and section 34 of penal code?

Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation.

Voyeurism.
Exortion.
Act done by several person in furtherance of common intention.

2. Whether Shivansh is liable for offence committed under relavent provision of IT

ACT, 2000?

Violation of information technology act.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•Petioner file that , Shivansh is liable for committing the offence under section 376B,
383 ,354C of penal code.

Shivansh who committed the offence of raped his wife without her approval or consent of
her, which crimes under the 376B , which states that , Whoever has sexual intercourse with
his own wife, who is living separately, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise,
without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

And he also committed the offence of section 354C voyeurism, in that he threatens Roshni
that he will leak the intimate image of Shivansh and Roshni were being sent to her along
with. Anoop v. State of kerala the case which dealt with same section 354C OF IPC.

While he threatening the Roshni about leak of private image of Roshni, he threatens her that
she should pay hefty amount of money or else those images will be uploaded in the social
media platform, which falls under the 383 of ipc. There is precedent called Deepak sharma
v.state of Uttarakhand which is related to it.

•Shivansh and his parents are the both of them have committed the offence of “Act done by
several person in furtherance of common intention “section 34 of ipc. Due to compulsion of
her husband and husband’s parents , her personal liberty has been violated

•Petioner filed that, Shivansh is liable for offence committed under relavent provision of IT
ACT, 2000

•Information technology act not regulates the e-commerce, which also regulates cybercrime.
the offence committed by Shivansh was a one of cyber-crime, which are leak of images
internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

 11

PRAYER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised and arguments advanced, the counsel for
the Petitioners humbly prays that the Hon’ble session court of Aaryavarth offence
be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

• Conviction of offence of sexual intercource of husband upon his wife

during separation, extortion, voyeurism and act done by several person in
furtherance of common intention.
• Shivansh is liable for offence committed under relevant provision of IT
ACT, 2000

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
Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION