STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The defence most humbly submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Courthave the necessary subject

matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant matter under Section 136 of the

Sindian Constitution, 1950.

Thereby, the DEFENCE submits this memorial which sets forth the facts and the laws on

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Anirudh Singh was a renowned actor in the Shollywood film industry in Sindia. He

belonged to a middle class family living in a small town named “Sapnaganj” in the

peripheries of the state of “Kihar”. He was a man of knowledge and wisdom and had a deep

passion for Science and Technology and does choose engineering for his further academic

studies. He was a top ranker in his university and his ideas and innovations never failed to

mesmerize his professors. He was a jovial man and never cared for what his peers think for

him. He followed his own will and took his decision without any societal pressures. He was

always fond of theatre and acting and developed a deep zeal to pursue his career in acting.

INCIDENT

In 2012 he started his career as a struggling Television actor and his immense. His first movie

caught many eyes and he earned his fame and was getting many offers for various movies

with some already established co-stars.. He was always seen as an outsider and was never

treated as a colleague in the industry. Some of the Nepo kids‟ saw him as a potential

competitor in the industry and wanted to eliminate him from Shollywood. On 25 March 2016,

Karma Productions, which is one of the biggest production houses in Sindia announced on its

social media handles that they are doing three films with Mr. Anirudh Singh in the upcoming

years. However, later when the trailers of these films released, people were shocked to see

that in place of Anirudh, some, Nepo kids‟ were doing the films. On being asked about this,

the production house announced in the media that Anirudh was undisciplined and because of

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

his unprofessional behavior he lost his films. The Nepo kids‟ and their puppets in the media

industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing blind articles and blogs on their platforms. A

few times, some big producers, even some of the actors also refused to sign a movie simply

because Anirudh was in the lead role.

This treatment in the industry was pinching him but as the happy-go-lucky man Anirudh was,

he never let this alien treatment affect his career. He worked in almost eight movies after that.

He was building a huge fan base and was always known for his kind and compassionate

nature. 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.

He was deeply depressed and tensed. He was receiving constant hate messages from

unknown people and refused to talk to his friends and family and was constantly worried

about his future. 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. He was

distressed and depressed but was not ready to share it with anyone. Only a few of his loyal

friends knew about his condition and they always tried to boost his spirit. On the tragic day of

June 1, 2020, the whole world was left in shock. He was found dead hanging with the ceiling

fan as he left the world by ending his own life.

INVESTIGATION

The police investigation found it to be a case of suicide under the Sindian Penal Code, 1860.

A criminal complaint was filed under section 109, 306, 504 and 506 of the Sindian Penal

Code, 1860 against some “Shollywood Biggies”.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

 STATEMENT OF CHARGES

1. Whether or not, Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the eyes of law?

2. Whether or not the charges under section 109 and 306 of Sindian Penal Code are

maintainable or not?

3. Whether or not the charges under section 504 and 506 of Sindian Penal Code are

maintainable or not?

4. Whether or not the charges under section 499 of Sindian Penal Code are maintainable or

not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF

LAW

It is humbly submitted before e Hon’ble Supreme Court, that Special Leave Petition under

Article 136 of the Sindian Constitution is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial

question of law of general public importance. The arbitrary and hasty judgment of the session

court acquitting Arman khan, Aila Kapoor, Ram Kanwar, Karun Pawan and Taran Kohar

(hereinafter A1) liable for abetment of suicide under § 306 Sindian Penal Code (hereinafter

SPC), 1860 has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice and if the SC does not intervene, it will

result in gross injustice. Mr. Anirudh Singh who was a renowned personality in the country, self-

made actor, rising solely due to his talent and a university topper but some stars, product of

nepotism (hereinafter Nepo kids) treated him as an outsider and wanted to eliminate him from

the industry as he was a potential threat to their career.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

A1 created such situation around Mr. Anirudh Singh which forced him to take such harsh step

and end his own life. The Shollywood biggies forced producers and directors to boycott Anirudh

and sign only Nepo kids in their movies. Such behaviour by the senior actor towards Anirudh

made his life miserable..

Also Mr. Anirudh was a jovial man and tackled all problems in his life with a big smile on his

face and according to his closed ones he was a strong person and cannot end his own life, also

there was no suicide note found in his flat which raises some serious questions on the

investigation.The Hon’ble SC should therefore, applying its wide jurisdiction conferred under

Art. 136 of the Constitution of Sindia use corrective measures to correct the wrong done by the

decision of the session court.

ISSUE II: A1 ARE LIABLEUNDER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 109 AND 306

OF SINDIA PENAL CODE

It is humbly submitted that Shollywood industry (hereinafter A2) is liable for the offence of

abetment of suicide under § 109 and 306 of SPC, 1860 as they had the necessary intention and

knowledge of the consequences of the act they had committed. They created an atmosphere of

worries and tensions around A1 which forced him to take such drastic step.

A2 is liable for instigating and is also liable for abetment under § 306 of SPC as they not only

excluded and eliminated A1 from the industry but alsosurrounded him with false allegations. A2

along with its puppets in the media industry tried to demean A1 by publishing blind articles and

blogs on their platform. The reluctant behaviour was so intense that A1 eventually lost his

consciousness.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

ISSUE III: A1 ARE LIABLE UNDER THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 504 AND 506

OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE

It is humbly submitted that Shollywood industry (hereinafter A2) is liable under § 504 i.e.

Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and under § 506 i.e. Punishment for

criminal intimidation of Sindian Penal Code, 1860.The accused must be shown to have had the

intention or knowledge that by such insults, he would be provoking the commission of an

offence.A1 has insulted Mr. Anirudh in every possible manner. Being a threat to nepo kids’

career due to his immense acting skills, he was always treated as an outsider. He was insulted by

A1. He was not invited in any parties, talk shows, or award shows. He was boycotted by actors

and producers so that he cannot get any work in the industry and forced to leave the industry.

ISSUE IV: A1 ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 499 OF SINDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1860

It is humbly submitted that Shollywood industry (hereinafter A2) is liable for the offence of

defemation of suicide under § 499 of SPC, 1860 as they had the necessary intention and

knowledge of the consequences of the act they had committed. Mr. Anirudh was rising solely

due to his own talent and skills but there were some stars that were, in fact, the product of

‘Nepotism’ (Nepo Kids) in the Industry were not liking it.The Nepo kids and their puppets in the

media industry tried to demean Anirudh by publishing blind articles and blogs on their platforms.

A few times, some big producers, even some of the actors also refused to sign a movie simply

because Anirudh was in the lead role. 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.He was deeply depressed

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

and tensed. He was receiving constant hate messages from unknown people and refused to talk to

his friends and family and was constantly worried about his future

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most

humbly prayed and implored before this Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and

declare that:

I. Convict A1 for the offence of Abetment under § 109 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860;

Abetment of suicide under § 306 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860; for intentional insult

with intent to provoke breach of peace under § 504 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860; for

criminal intimidation under § 506 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860; and for defamation under

§ 499of Sindian Penal Code, 1860.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of the PROSECUTION to meet the

ends of equity, justice & good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Prosecution shall be duty bound forever pray.

PLACE: S/d

DATED: Counsel for the Prosecution

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

 ISSUE I: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF

LAW

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is no

necessity or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and invoking its powers under

Article 136. Supreme Court is only concerned with question of law i.e. if the law was correctly

applied, whether the interpretation of law was in accordance with the settled principles of law.

The instant case does not raise any question of law or is of public importance. Everyone is equal

in the eyes of law and should be treated equally. Judgment of the session court acquitting Arman

khan, Aila Kapoor, Ram Kanwar, Karun Pawan and Taran Kohar (hereinafter A1) liable for

abetment of suicide under § 306 Sindian Penal Code (hereinafter SPC), 1860 is justified as any

act of A1 was not provoking Anirudh to commit suicide. He was in deep trap of depression as he

lost several movies in the past years.

ISSUE II: A1 IS NOT LIABLE UNDER § 109, 306 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is humbly submitted that A1 are neither for the offence of abetment under §109 nor for

abetment of suicide under § 306. It is essential to keep in mind when considering the law relating

to abetment is the requirement of mens rea as a precondition for liability. The essence of

abetment is active and intentional assistance of a person to the perpetrator of an offence.In order

to attract § 109 SPC prosecution has to establish the intention or knowledge to cause abetment.

This is missing in the instant matter.

For conviction under § 306, the offence of abetment must conform to the definition of

“abetment” given in section 107 of the Sindian Penal Code.There must be instigation, or

engaging in conspiracy, or assistance in the commission of the offence. Further there has to be a

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

clear Mens Rea to commit the offence.A1 had no intent or motive to harm Anirudh. Therefore,

there was no intention and knowledge on A1’s part to commit the offence.

ISSUE III: A1 IS NOT LIABLE UNDER § 109, 306 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is humbly submitted thatthe act of accused would fall under the mischief of § 504, SPC,

1860 only when, firstly, the accused intentionally insults some person thereby provoking him;

secondly, that he had the intention or knowledge that such provocation will likely to cause the

insulted person to either breach public peace or commit any other offence.Mere use of words

without any intention to cause an insult by those words or actions, does not attract §504

SPC.From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it can be clearly established that A1 never

threatened Anirudh to his reputation or property.There was no apprehension of threat to reputation of

the complainant in the instant case.

A1 acted in a manner a reasonable person under competitive industry would have acted.A1 had
no intention to insult A1.

ISSUE IV: A1 IS NOT LIABLE UNDER § 499 OF SINDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

It is humbly submitted that mere insult or abuse does not by itself constitute defamation, unless

and until it is proved to have lowered his reputation in the estimation of others.it has been held

that every citizen of the country has a fundamental right to impart as well as receive information

through electronic media. It is here to contend that there has not been any sort of defamatory

statement by A1 for Anirudh.

PRAYER

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced & authorities cited, it is most

humbly prayed and implored before this court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and

declare that:

I. Acquit A1 for the offence of Abetment under § 109 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860;

Abetment of suicide under § 306 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860; for intentional insult

with intent to provoke breach of peace under § 504 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860; for

criminal intimidation under § 506 of Sindian Penal Code, 1860; and for defamation under

§ 499of Sindian Penal Code, 1860.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favour of the DEFENCE to meet the ends of

equity, justice & good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Prosecution shall be duty bound forever pray.

PLACE: Dilli S/d

DATED: 3 August, 2020 Counsel for the Defence

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

**Judgment**

This case comes before this Hon'ble Court on a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner,

Mr. Anirudh Singh, challenging the judgment of the lower court acquitting the respondents,

herein referred to as "Shollywood Biggies," of charges under sections 109, 306, 504, and 506 of

the Sindian Penal Code, 1860.

Mr. Anirudh Singh, a renowned actor in the Shollywood film industry, faced discrimination and

exclusion from the industry due to his non-nepotistic background. The respondents, influential

figures in the industry, allegedly orchestrated a campaign to ostracize Mr. Anirudh Singh,

leading to significant professional and personal distress. Tragically, Mr. Anirudh Singh

succumbed to depression and took his own life on June 1, 2020. The police investigation initially

concluded it as a case of suicide. The police investigation found it to be a case of suicide under

the Sindian Penal Code, 1860. A criminal complaint was filed under section 109, 306, 504 and

506 of the Sindian Penal Code, 1860 against some “Shollywood Biggies”.Which led to

Following issue

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?

2. Whether the charges under sections 109 and 306 of the Sindian Penal Code are maintainable?

3. Whether the charges under sections 504 and 506 of the Sindian Penal Code are maintainable?

4. Whether the charges under section 499 of the Sindian Penal Code are maintainable?

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

Now With Regard to the Issue Maintainability of the Special Leave Petition**

This Hon'ble Court holds that the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Sindian

Constitution is maintainable. The matter involves substantial questions of law of general public

importance, particularly concerning the rights of individuals in the entertainment industry. The

petitioner alleges a miscarriage of justice resulting from the lower court's judgment, necessitating

this Court's intervention.

With Regard to the Liability under Sections 109 and 306 of the Sindian Penal Code**

The Court finds the respondents liable for abetment of suicide under sections 109 and 306 of the

Sindian Penal Code. The evidence presented demonstrates that the respondents created a hostile

environment for Mr. Anirudh Singh, leading to severe mental anguish and ultimately his tragic

demise. Their actions, including the dissemination of false allegations and exclusion from

professional opportunities, constitute clear instances of abetment.

With Regard to the Liability under Sections 504 and 506 of the Sindian Penal Code**

The Court holds the respondents liable under sections 504 and 506 of the Sindian Penal Code for

intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The respondents' concerted efforts to degrade and

marginalize Mr. Anirudh Singh, both professionally and personally, amounted to intentional

insult with the intent to provoke breach of the peace. Additionally, their actions instilled fear and

apprehension in Mr. Anirudh Singh, constituting criminal intimidation.

With Regard to the Liability for Defamation under Section 499 of the Sindian Penal Code**

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

The Court finds the respondents liable for defamation under section 499 of the Sindian Penal

Code. The respondents, through their actions and statements, tarnished Mr. Anirudh Singh's

reputation and subjected him to public ridicule and scorn. Their deliberate efforts to undermine

his career and character constitute defamation under the law.

In light of the foregoing, this Hon'ble Court upholds the Special Leave Petition and sets aside the

judgment of the lower court. The respondents, Shollywood Biggies, are found guilty of the

charges under sections 109, 306, 499,504, and 506 of the Sindian Penal Code. The matter is

remanded to the lower court for appropriate sentencing in accordance with the law.

The respondents are directed to compensate the petitioner's family for the loss and suffering

endured as a result of their actions.Thus they are Directed to Pay Appeallant fine of Rs 80,000/-

In consideration of the gravity of the offenses committed byAccused, this Hon'ble Court hereby

sentences him to of Non-rigorous imprisonment of Six Months and imposes a fine of 80,000

rupees.

Accused deliberate and malicious actions in orchestrating a campaign of defamation, intentional

insult, criminal intimidation, and abetment of suicide against Mr. Anirudh Singh have caused

irreparable harm to both his professional career and personal well-being. Such egregious conduct

cannot be condoned by society and warrants a significant penalty to serve as a deterrent to others

who may contemplate similar actions in the future. It is imperative that justice is served to

uphold the sanctity of the law and ensure the protection of individuals' rights and dignity.

Additionally, the respondents are instructed to undertake measures to rectify the damage caused

to Mr. Anirudh Singh's reputation and legacy in the Shollywood industry.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020

STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1st National Memorial Drafting Competition, 2020