Statement of Facts:

1. Bhadravati, a small town in Sammanrashtra, situated within the democratic nation of

Aryavarta, forms the backdrop for this case. The legal framework in Aryavarta is
closely aligned with that of India.
2. Twinkle, a 38-year-old woman, confided in her sister-in-law about experiencing
severe stomach pain. Subsequent medical examination revealed Twinkle to be four
months pregnant. Twinkle implicated Sumesh, a 24-year-old resident of her locality,
as the father of her unborn child.
3. In response to Twinkle's condition, her family approached Sumesh's household with a
proposal for marriage, which Sumesh and his family rejected. Instead, they suggested
resolving the situation through abortion.
4. Following Sumesh's refusal to marry Twinkle, an FIR was filed at the Bhadravati
Police Station, accusing Sumesh of rape under sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(l), and 506
of the Aryavarta Penal Code.
5. During the investigation, Twinkle led authorities to the location where the alleged
rapes occurred, providing detailed accounts of the incidents.
6. Medical examinations confirmed Twinkle's pregnancy, but did not provide any
assessment of her mental or physical condition.
7. Witness testimony presented conflicting narratives, with one witness claiming to have
seen Twinkle and Sumesh together on multiple occasions, while Twinkle's nephew
denied witnessing any forced interactions.
8. Twinkle's sister-in-law requested the assistance of a translator during the trial, alleging
Twinkle's mental and physical incapacity, which the judge granted.
9. DNA evidence established Sumesh as the father of Twinkle's child, prompting the
prosecution to argue that Twinkle was not in a state to provide consent.
10. A knife mentioned in the FIR was recovered from Sumesh's kitchen, identified as a
household item.
11. Sumesh was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 15 years of rigorous
imprisonment under the relevant sections of the Aryavarta Penal Code. His
subsequent appeal in the Sammanrashtra High Court was dismissed.
12. Sumesh now seeks relief from the Supreme Court of Aryavarta, challenging his
conviction in a final attempt to overturn the verdict.

In the town of Bhadravati, nestled within the democratic nation of Aryavarta, a troubling saga
unfolds involving Twinkle, a 38-year-old woman, and Sumesh, a 24-year-old resident of the
same locality. Twinkle's ordeal began when she confided in her sister-in-law about severe
stomach pains, only to discover through medical examination that she was four months
pregnant. Accusing Sumesh of being the father, Twinkle's family approached Sumesh's
household proposing marriage to resolve the situation, but Sumesh and his family adamantly
refused, instead suggesting an abortion.

Frustrated by Sumesh's rejection, Twinkle and her sister-in-law lodged a First Information
Report (FIR) at the Bhadravati Police Station, charging Sumesh with rape under specific
sections of the Aryavarta Penal Code. During the ensuing investigation, Twinkle bravely
guided authorities to the site of the alleged assaults, providing detailed accounts of the
incidents. However, the medical examination performed on Twinkle failed to provide any
assessment of her mental or physical condition, leaving crucial gaps in the evidence.

Witness testimony added layers of complexity to the case, with one witness claiming to have
seen Twinkle and Sumesh together on multiple occasions, while Twinkle's nephew denied
witnessing any forced interactions. During the trial, Twinkle's sister-in-law requested the aid
of a translator, citing Twinkle's alleged mental and physical incapacity, a request granted by
the presiding judge. Despite Sumesh's DNA being a match to Twinkle's child, the prosecution
argued that Twinkle was not in a state to provide consent. Ultimately, Sumesh was convicted
and sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment, a decision upheld by the Sammanrashtra
High Court. Now, Sumesh seeks reprieve from the Supreme Court of Aryavarta, challenging
his conviction in a final bid for justice.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT?

2. WHETHER, THE ALLEGED VICTIM, WAS MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY
CAPABLE OF PROVIDING CONSENT FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY?
3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE TRIAL, INCLUDING
WITNESS TESTIMONY, MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORTS, DNA
EVIDENCE, AND THE RECOVERY OF THE KNIFE FROM SUMESH'S
RESIDENCE ARE RELIABLE AND ADMISSIBLE?
4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(N), 376(2)
(L), AND 506 OF THE ARYAVARTA PENAL CODE?
REFERENCES

 https://www.scribd.com/document/516816024/376-RESPONDENT-2
 https://www.studocu.com/in/document/christ-deemed-to-be-university/criminal-law-
1/memorial-for-prosecution-ta-34/18403116
 https://www.scribd.com/document/681907688/Appellant-Memorial-IPC
 https://www.casemine.com/search/in/section%2B376%281%29of%2Bipc%2Band
%2B506
 https://www.scribd.com/document/257977538/memorial
 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bombay-high-court-dismisses-maharashtras-plea-
to-stay-judgment-acquitting-prof-gn-saibaba-others-251356?infinitescroll=1
