A' TC (01)' (1)

] GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024
TEAM CODE: IMC24-01
GAUTAM BUDDHAUNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA
SPECIAL APPEAL TO PETITION

[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VISHWESHWARA ]
IN THE MATTER OF
RANVEER ... APPELLANT
V.
DEEPIKA ... RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
1
GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS........... ........................................................................................4
INDEX AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................5
ACTS AND STATUTES..........................................................................................................6
BOOKS REFERRED...............................................................................................................6
LEGAL DATABASE................................................................................................................6
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 7
STATEMENTOFFACTS ......................................................................................................... 8
ISSUES RAISED ......................................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...................................................................................................10
ARUGEMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

OF VISHWESHWARA
1.1 PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI
1.2 THE MATTER INVOLVES SUSTAINTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
1.3 GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
2. I. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE VNC IS CONSTITUIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
II. WHETHER RANVEER LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 69 OF VNC
3. ADMISIABILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF INTENTION.
3.1 WHATSAPP CHATS; PRIMARY OR SECONARY EVIDENCE ?
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansion
AIR All India Reporter
Hon’ble Honorable
& And
UOV Union ofVishweshwara
Art Article
VNC Vishweshwara Nyaya Code
SCR Supreme Court Record
SCC Supreme Court cases
SC Supreme Court
Ors Others
v. Versus
No./ Nos. Number/Numbers
p/pp. Page/pages
Resp.Answer Respondent Answer
HC High court
govt. Government
iii
INDEXOF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat
ArunachalamvP.S. R. Sadhanantham
Nihal Singh& ors. V. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
(Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC);
(C.C.E V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298
Janshed hormusji Wadia V. board of trustees, port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 SC
Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978;
A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988)
Kathi running Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123
Achyut Adhikari v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039
(Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)
(R.C. Copper v. Union of India, (2018)11 SCC 1
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
Hariprasad Rao V. State (1951)SCR 322
4
ACTSANDSTATUTES:
1. TheConstitutionofVishweshwara
2. Vishweshwara Nyaya Code, 2023
3. Vishweshwara Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Vishweshwara Sakhshya Adhniyam,2023
BOOKS REFERRED:
BooksArticlesandlegislation
i. H.M. Servaii, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., Universal

LawPublishing, New Delhi, 2010.
ii. D.J. PandeyConstitutional LawofIndia (56thEdition,
CentralLawAgency,2019)
iii. Constitution of India by V.N Shukla
LEGALDATABASE:
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.supremecourtofindia.com
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum of the petition filed before this
honorable court under Section 691of VNC.
1
Whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry to a woman without any intention
of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting
to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. ––– “deceitful means”
shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marring after
suppressing identity.
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The case is set in the state ofBhageshwari in Vishweshwara, a quasi-federal state

with a predominantly Hindu population.
Deepika, from Kollam district, and Ranveer, from Chittoor district, are both
Hindus and medical students at Vikramaditya Medical College in Kasaragod.
Ranveer, a year senior to Deepika, helps her adjust to college life, and they
become a couple in July 2021.
They move into a rented apartment together in February 2022, primarily due to
societal pressure.
Deepika's childhood friend, Karan, returns from the US and settles in Kasaragod,
causing tension in Deepika and Ranveer's relationship.
At a Christmas party in December 2023, Karan expresses his feelings for

Deepika, leading to a confrontation between Ranveer and Karan.
Ranveer leaves their shared apartment on 25th December 2023 after an argument
with Deepika and Karan.
Deepika files an FIR against Ranveer under the new Vishweshwara Nyaya Code
(VNC) for promise to marry and desertion.
The Sessions Court convicts Ranveer based on WhatsApp messages as evidence

of the promise to marry and sentences him to 8 years of simple imprisonment
Ranveer appeals the decision to the Supreme Court of Vishweshwara, with the
final hearing scheduled for 19th April 2024.
7
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court of

Vishweshwara
2. Whether Section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Whether Ranveer is

liable for punishment under Section 69 of VNC?
3. Whether Electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?
8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court of

Vishweshwara?
➢ It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the
present SLP filed by the petitioner is maintainable in the
Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution of
Vishweshwara if the Supreme Court does not intervene it
will result in gross injustice and that miscarriage of Justice
has already been occurred by the judgment of the session
ports who issued an imprisonment of petitioner for 8 years.
2. Whether this section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Ranveer
is liable for punishment under section 69 of VNC?
➢ The Counselfor petitioner humbly challenges the
constitutionality of the section 69 of VNC on the basis of
weakness and arbitrariness and violation fundamental rights
of an individual due implication of this clause.
➢ The Counselfor petitioners summits that Ranveer is not
liable for punishment under section 69 of the VNC as
nowhere in the facts and the findings by the session court
the ‘Mens Rea’ was proven and Karan’s testimony cannot
admit as trusted evidence for the petitioner’s accountability.
3. Weather electronic evidence is admissible as a proof of intention?
➢ Electronic evidences are highly circumstantial and have no

evidentiary valueHigh Court granted bail to a man accused under
the NDPS Act, after noting that the Whatsapp messages would
"have no evidentiary value" unless they were certified under the
provisions of Section 65B of Evidence Act.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme

Court of Vishweshwara?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara

that this special petition is maintainable in this court under article 136 of the
Constitution of Vishweshwara which reads as under -
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 judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of Vishweshwara.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or
order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the armed forces
The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 has distinguishing features:
a. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgements, decrees or

final orders of the high court. It can be granted even against the decisions
of the lower courts.
b. The order or determination of a court or tribunal may be in any cause or
matter, civil or criminal or otherwise.
10
“By virtue of this article the court can grant special leave in civil cases, in
criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which come up before
different kinds of tribunals, and any variety of cases”. 2
The only conditions are -

(i) The determination or order sought to be appealed from must have
the character of a judicial adjudication purely administrative or
executive direction is not contemplated to be made the subject
matter of appeal in the Supreme Court
(ii) The authorities whose act is complained against must be a court or
a tribunal
The Counsel for petitioners humbly submits before the court that the appeal is of
a character of judicial adjudication and the authority complained against is the
session court.
In Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat3, it was contented by

the supreme court that
“Under Article 136, there is no room for any doubt that this court has wide power
to interfere and correct the judgement and orders passed by any court or tribunal
in the country. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special residuary
power to entertain appeal against any order of any court in the country. The
plenary jurisdiction of this court to grant leave and hear appeals against any
order of a court or tribunal, confers power of judicial superintendence over all
the courts and tribunals in the territory of Vishweshwara including sub ordinate
courts of Magistrate and District Judge. This court has, therefore, supervisory
jurisdiction over all the courts in Vishweshwara.”
2
Pritam Singh v State, 1950 SCR 453; 1950 SCC 189
3
1991 AIR 2176, 1991, SCR(936)
11
In another case of Arunachalam vs P.S.R.Sadhanantham4, it was again

contended by the SC that: -
“Article 136 of the box station of Vishweshwara in West the

Supreme Court with a plentitude of penal and appellate power
over all the courts and tribunals in India the power is penally in
the sense that there are no words in article 136 itself qualifying
that power. But the penally nature of power has led the court to
set limits to itself within which to exercise such power it is now
well-established practice of this court to permit the invocation of
power under article 136 only in exceptional circumstances as and
when a question of law of general public importance arises or a
decision which the conscience of the court”
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present appeal filed
by the petitioner is maintainable in the supreme court under article 136 of the
constitution of Vishweshwara
➢ If the supreme court does not intervene, it will result in gross injustice and
that miscarriage of justice has already been occurred, by the judgment of
sessions court who issued non-bailable warrant against Ranveer with
complete disregard of fundamental rights for his personal liberty and his
right to natural justice.
➢ Article 136of the constitution of Vishweshwara elucidates the special leave
to appeal by the Supreme court.
This, SLP is maintainable as, firstly, the appellant has ‘LOCUS STANDI’ to
approach the Hon’ble Supreme court. Secondly, the matter involves
substantial question of law of general public importance. Thirdly, grave
injustice has been done.
1.1 The petitioner has LOCUS STANDI to approach the Honorable
Supreme Court
➢ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
appellant has LOCUS STANDI to approach the Supreme
Court in the presence case article 136 of the Constitution is
4
1979 AIR 1284
12
couched in the widest phraseology. (Nihal Singh& ors. V.

State of Punjab)5
➢ This court jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion it is
pertinent to note that the scope of article 134 providing
appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal matters is limited
whereas article 136 is very broad based and confers
discretion on the court to hear in any cause or matter.
therefore, criminal appeals may be brought to the Supreme
Court under article 136 when these are not covered by article
134
1.2 The matter involves question of law of general public importance
➢ The jurisdiction confirmed under article 136 on the Supreme

Court is corrected one and not a restrictive one and one can we
invoke when a question of law of general public importance
arises by filing a special leave petition
➢ A duty is enjoyed upon the Supreme Court to exercise a power
by setting right to illegality in the judgments, it is well settled
that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure
by the Supreme Court to interfere with the same would amount
to illegality to be perpetuated (Pawan Kumar vs State of
Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC); See also HM Servaii
constitutional Law of India 4 th edition volume 12010)
➢ Article 136 is the residuary power of the Supreme Court to do
justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice (C.C.E
V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298; see also
HM Servaii constitutional law of India 4 th edition volume
II2010) The principle is that that this court would never do
injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of
upholding technicalities (Janshed hormusji Wadia V. board of
trustees, port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 SC)
➢ In the instant matter the right to life and liberty (Art. 21), right
to fair trial (Art. 21; Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978;
5
AIR 1965 SC 26
13
See also, A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988) and reasonable

opportunity (Art.14) is violated by the observation of the
session court which is the matter of general public importance
and therefore calls for intervention by the Supreme Court.
1.3 The matter involves substantial question of law and gross

injustice has been done
• It is humbly submitted by the petitioner before this Honorable court that the
matter involves substantial question of law as it concerns the violation of
fundamental right of, right of liberty, right of dignity, right of fair trial and
right of reasonable opportunity
1.3.1 Substantial question of law is involved

➢ In the present matter the question is whether the
chats admitted as evidence can indicate a clear
promise to marry or whether they simply are
expression of love and future plans without a
definitive commitment to marriage.
➢ Furthermore, can Ranbir be held reliable for
punishment under section 69 of the
Vishweshwara Nayay Code which provides the
offense of deceitful conduct contrary to promise
of marriage
➢ Additionally , whether the evidence presented by
Deepika and Karan is sufficient to establish that
Ranbir made a deceitful conduct on contrary to
the promise to marry or whether there are
circumstances that mitigate his liability.
In the instant case the session court has erred in deciding a very substantial question
of law related to the right of life and liberty and reasonable opportunity of the
plaintiff
It is therefore submitted that the present case involves a matter of general public
importance as it directly affects the right of a party that has an erroneous and
prejudicial effect to the interests of people
14
1.3.2 Gross injustice has been done

➢ The observation word by this judgment of the session vote is bad in
the eyes of law as it did not recognize the right of liberty right of
choice right of reasonable opportunity and right of fair trial of
Ranveer which is an intrinsic part of the right to life and right of
equality as a fundamental right rather than as a common law right.
Grave miscarriage of Justice has occurred because of its serious and
flagrant violation of law has been committed by the observation of
the session courts for which the interference of Supreme Court is
required
➢ Does every breach of promise of marriage comes under the ambit of
deceitful means under section 69 of the VNS and very such breach is
necessarily an offence to be amounted as cognizable offence and non
bailable offence. Such decision of the session court implies grave
injustice that has been on the part of sessions court without actually
into account the psychological impact, social impact on Ranveer’s
life. This judgment of sessions court is Great violation of right of
dignity, right of liberty and right of choice. Therefore, grave injustice
has been done by the session court by acquitting Ranbir for
imprisonment for eight years.
a. Every breach of promise to marry is not a crime -
Courts have drawn distinction between rape and consensual sex
In Yedla Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2006) 11 SCC 615] ,apex court held
that the voluntary Consent depends on the fabs of each case and factors such as age
of the girl, her education, her social status and likewise the social status for the boy.
In another such case Consensual sexual relationship which is continued between the
parties for quite long time could not be said to have continued under the
misconception of the fact that Under the set law as rape ; Dilip Kumar V. State of
bihar[(2005) 1 SCC88].
15
1.3.3 Finding of facts may give rise to substantial question of law
➢ The Supreme Court is not precluded from going into question of facts under
article 136 if it considers it necessary to do so (Kathi running Rawat v. State
of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123, See also, Achyut Adhikari v. West Bengal,
AIR 1963 SC 1039) Article 136 uses the words in any course or matter this
gives widest part to this quote to deal with any quasar or matter (Pritam
Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)
➢ If the instant case the observation reached conclusion that Ranbir’s act as
deceitful means for promise to marry is not valid. And such an observation
leads to overlooking Fundamental rights of Ranbir as to life of dignity, right
of Liberty, right of right fair trial right of reasonable opportunities. The
judgment of the session report is hence violative of the basic structure
provided by the Constitution to safeguard its citizens.
Thus, from the above grounds it is humbly submitted that the petition on behalf of
Ranbir is maintainable before this Honorable Supreme Court of Fish Vishweshwara
Hence the Counsel for petitioner humbly summits that the special petition filed by
the petitioner is maintenable and the Counsel requests the court to accept the SLP of
the petitioner.
2. I. Whether section 69 of the PNC is constitutionally valid or not?
II. Whether Ranbir is liable for punishment under session 69 of VNC?
I. Whether he section 69 of the VNC is constitutionally valid or not?
2.1 Vagueness and Arbitrariness of Section 69 of the Vishweshwara

Nyaya Code
➢ The section 69 of Vishweshwara Nyaya Code i.e. sexual
intercourse by employing the deceitful means etc. Is arguably
vague in abroad as it does not provide a clear guidance as to
what constitutes disciple conduct contrary to the promise to
marry this lack of clarity reached to arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement of this section as seen in the
judgment of the session court
16
➢ The importance of the ‘object ‘of law cannot be made a ground

to trample the right of life and liberty guaranteed to petitioner it
is not the ‘object’ of the state action or ‘form’ thereof which is
material, it is the direct effect upon the right of an individual
which shall be the determining factor for judging the
constitutional validity of the action (R.C. Copper v. Union of
India, (2018)11 SCC 1). The Supreme Court has clarified that
even if the object of the legislation is ‘good’ the means to
achieve that object cannot be violated of the fundamental
rights.
➢ And this legislative law criminalizes certain expression of
intent regarding future relationships this Should be seen as
unconstitutional limitation on the personal autonomy of
Ranveer and his personal liberty. When something is done by
the Legislature which is excessive and disproportionate such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid
Mujib)6 Therefore it should be taken into note that section 69
of the VNC is biased and overlooks the right of equality of
certain section of the society
➢ No court would be justified in ignoring the personal liberty of
the accused in preference to the object of law and clearly in the
instant matter the session quote has overlooked the right of
personal liberty and integrity of Ranveer in its observation by
sentencing him for a representative of imprisonment of 8 years.
Under the ambit of deceitful means of section 69 of the VNC.
2.2 Violative of equal rights and opportunities

➢ Ranveer and Deepika had a consensual sexual relationship,
which they continued after their cohabitation in a rented
apartment and were both planning a future together. However,
after a verbal altercation, Ranveer left and ultimately ended
their relationship. Which led him to be accused of deceitful
conduct contrary to promise to marry.
6
( 1981 ) 1 SCC 722
17
➢ But during the period of their relationship it was nowhere seen,

found or observed that Deepika was induced for false promise
of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing
identity. (see; explanation ‘deceitful means’ u/s 69) but rather
during the time for their relationship Ranveer was completely
honest with his intentions to actually marry Deepika out love.
➢ Moreover, Deepika’s silence during Karan’s allegations on
Ranveer and her subsequent decision about conveying their
breakup to her friends and then subsequently moving in with
Karan indicates that she is complicit in the situation, yet she’s
not held accountable for her such act by the sessions court
Therefore, the unfair and discriminatory application of Section
69 of VNC against Ranveer is a clear violation of his right to
equal protection under the exercise of his fundamental right
under Art.14 of the constitution.
2.2.1 Disproportionate punishment
➢ The punishment described by section 69 of the VNC up
to ten years of punishment must be deemed
disproportionate to the harm caused, particularly in
cases where the parties involved had a consensual
sexual relationship.
➢ It is important to note that unreal received an 8-year
sentence for disciple conduct contrary to a promise to
marry which is a serious punishment disproportionate
to the circumstances of the offense the punishment
imposed on Ranveer has significant impact in his career
and future prospects particularly as a medical student.
his conviction for a criminal offense will negatively
affect his ability to obtain a medical license, secure
future, employment and maintain relationships.
Additionally, the stigma associated with a criminal
conviction may affect his personal life, mental health
and reputation. Therefore, it is important to consider
whether such a harsh punishment is warranted in this
case particularly as the relationship between Deepika
18
and Ranveer was consensual and there is no evidence of

physical or emotional harm inflicted on the Deepika.
The Counsel for plaintiff humbly presents before the court that this penalty is
excessively severe and does not serve the legitimate objective of law henceforth
violating the plaintiffs right of equal opportunity guaranteed under article 14
2.2.2 Gender biased law

➢ It should also be taken in note by this Hon’ble Court
That this section 69 of the VNC is gender biased as it is
more likely to be used to penalize men for perceived
violations of promise to marry and such an
interpretation constitutes to violation of principle of
equality under the law
➢ For the successful staging of this legal spectacle, it then
becomes necessary to project the woman as devoid of
all sexual agency and construct her as an “innocent”
and “gullible” female who would not consent to “illicit
sex”.
➢ it does not require knowledge on part of the man that

the consent has been given under a misconception of
fact. the criminalization also opens up the door to a
litany of possible harms and abuses that could arise
even before such cases reach the trial stage.
II. Whether Ranveer is liable for punishment under second 69 of the

VNC?
2.A. Presence of Mens rea
In criminal law the concept of men’s rear refers to the necessary mental element
of Crime which includes the person’s knowledge intent and recklessness with
regard to the illegal Conduct in question. This implies that a person cannot be
19
criminally held liable for a conduct that was not accompanied by necessary
mental state in other words it must be proven that the person acted intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly in committing the crime depending on the elements of the
offence.
➢ In the instant matter present before The Hon’ble Court

the issue of ‘mens rea’ Arises in the application of
sections 69 of the VNC which criminal disciple conduct
contrary to a promise to marry.
➢ The Counselof petitioner potentially argues that
repetition did not possess the necessary mens rea for the
crime of which he is accused, as he made promise to
marry Deepika with the genuine intention out of love
of.
➢ And it was nowhere proven in the given facts of the
case that the mental state of the petitioner at the time of
the alleged promises was with an intent to deceive.
➢ The Counselfor petitioner Humbly Submits before the
honorable court that the observation held by the
sessions court was discriminatory on the grounds that
despite of not having any deceitful intention or presence
of mens rea by said petitioner he was held liable under
69 of the VNC for imprisonment of 8 years.
➢ It is well decided that unless statute either clearly or by
a necessary implication rules out men’s rea as a
constituent element of a crime a person should not be
found guilty of an offense unless he had a guilty mind
at the time of commercial of the offense (Hariprasad
Rao V. State (1951) SCR 322)
Therefore, the Counselfor petitioner humbly argues in the honorable court that the
petitioner Ranbir shall not be held liable under the circumstances that the
petitioner did not have an intention to deceive all means here at the time of
making promise to marry Deepika.
2B. Admissibility of Karan’s witness testimony in holding Ranveer liable
20
➢ The admissibility of current testimony as a witness should depend on

various factors such as his credibility and biasness that he may have and
whether his testimony can be corroborated with other evidence.
The potential issue which comes with the testimony of current is that his
relationship with Deepika as he is a childhood friend and may have a bias in
her favors and he can be counted as an interested witness.
• The Supreme Court of India has observed that to consider a witness as

an interest witness the court must establish that the set witness has
some kind of vested interest against the accused or other convex or
must have interest in the result of the case further it is a well-
established principle that according to the English law dictionary a
witness who has a witness vested in personal interest in the outcome or
result of the ongoing case is an interested witness in the case the
Supreme Court has held that when a witness is biased and aims at
falsely implicating the accused on the ongoing case is an interested
witness.
The motive at falsely implicating the accused on the ongoing case isn’t
interested witness the more to submit the bias against either of the parties
automatically need to develop a vested and personal interest in the final
result of the case
➢ But the session court in this case has already relied on current testimony
against the petitioner Ranveer. And has clearly overlooked the fact that
Karan had an ulterior intention to marry Deepika Which can be easily
observed in a statement which was made by him on 24th of December
2023 i.e. “It’s good that Ranveer conveyed his intention to marry you
otherwise I was planning on proposing you for marriage”. 7
From the above statement it could be clearly interpreted that Karan had
and motive to marry Deepika. In another instance during the verbal spat
between Ranveer and Karan, Karan voiced “So what if she wants to stay
with me rather than you, who are you to her?”.8
7
Memorial Para 5
8
Memorial Para 6
21
From the afforested statements it could be clearly observed that Karan has
a vested interest in Deepika. Decided from the cases cited in the Supreme
Court it is clear that in case admissibility of intended witnesses it is the
duty of the courts to ensure that there is no injustice made while
considering the evidence by the interested witness
But in the observation which was upheld in the session court it is certainly
clear that session court completely relied on the witness testimony which
violative to principle of justice and the session court also failed to test of
malice present in testimony of Karan “In Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish
Singh9the court the made following observation the requirement of law is
that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution.
In another case the court subsequently held that The settle position in law
in regard to the evidence of interested witness is that the court should
scrutinize the same with extra care and question as it would not be prudent
to place Reliance on insert evidence to basic induction and further that in
case such evidence is found reliable on Swachh protonated the court may
act on it without looking for Cooperative evidence one of the main
principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal trial is that the evidence
of witness who is not shown to be interested should be scrutinized
carefully and if it is found that it is not artificial not an all-natural not
improbable and does not suffer from intrinsic intimated is then it can be
relied upon if it suffers from any of these undesirable factors evidence do
given by an independent and in this interested witness ought not to be
relied upon in the instant case two witnesses were interested and there was
serious in formatting in their evidence there for Reliance could not be
placed on their evidence.”( Mutte Padharppa Ghigadolli vs. State of
Karnataka)
In conclusion to the arguments presented above it can be noted that the

session court Has failed to test the authenticity of the testimony of Karan as a
witness and has simply relied on his testimony leading to imprisonment of
Ranbir for a period of eight years for committing an offense under section 69
of the VNC
9
[(2005) 10 SCC 498 ]
22
Therefore, the Counselfor petitioner humbly submits before the honorable

court to overrule the decision observed by the session quote for holding
Ranveer Liable under the offense of section 69 of VNC.
3. Admissibility of Evidence and proof of intention
➢ According to Vishweshara Evidence Act,1872 Admisibility of evidence

deals, With the advent of internet revolution, the Indian legal system
incorporated technology into its proceedings through the Amendment Act
of 2000 to the Vishweshwara Evidence Act, 1872. The amendment was
introduced to add Section 65A & 65B to the act, keeping the concerns
regarding the authenticity of electronic records intact and to ensure their
adaptability in courtrooms. The admissibility of electronic evidence in
Indian courts, since then have been a topic of extensive discussion, one of
the reasons for which is the prevailing ambiguity in provisions
incorporated thereunder.
➢ The classification of electronic evidence as a secondary category of
acceptable evidence in court has sparked several important questions
surrounding its admissibility. One significant query is whether Section
65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and at what
stage the production of the certificate should ideally take place. Moreover,
the validity of the evidence and the applicability of different methods in
civil and criminal cases have remained uncertain.
➢ In 2005, the court ruled that printouts of phone records could be
considered admissible evidence even without a certificate under Section
65B (4). However, this judgment was later overruled in the case of Anvar
P. v. P. K. Basheer10.In the latter case, the Hon'ble Court held that Section
65B is a complete code, and evidence from any other source would not be
10
2014 10 SCC 473
23
permissible. It emphasized that the Vishweshwara Evidence Act does not

allow proof of an electronic record through oral evidence and stated that a
certificate under Section 65B (4) is mandatory.
➢ In 2017,the court reevaluated the requirement of a certificate and
concluded that certificates under Section 65B (4) are only a "mode of
proof." Therefore, the non-production of a certificate on an earlier
occasion could be considered a curable defect. This viewpoint was further
supported by another judgment in 2018, which stated that the requirement
of a certificate is procedural and not mandatory. It can be relaxed in
certain circumstances, such as when a party does not have control over the
original device. Consequently, Section 65B is not considered a complete
code.
Upon analyzing these judgments and the associated contradictions, it becomes

evident that there is a gap in the interpretation of the law.
3.1 WhatsApp Chats: Primary or Secondary Evidence?
In Girwar Singh v. CBI11, electronic evidence was introduced before the Court,
for which a committee was appointed to check the authenticity of the electronic
evidence. Later, the committee found that the evidence wasn't the original one or
the copy of the original. The evidence was copied numerous times in different
devices. Consequently, the Delhi H.C. held the electronic evidence was
unacceptable.
Here, it should be noticed that the presentation of evidence which has been copied
from an original document is known as Secondary Evidence. Section 63 of the
Vishweshwara Evidence Act, 1872 states different instances when Evidence is
11
CRL.A 263 & 279 /2009
24
viewed as Secondary Evidence. Then again, Section 62 characterizes Primary

Evidence as a document introduced in its original form for the inspection in the
Court.Sometimes digital evidence can be used towards establishing mens rea as
well. The social media posts of a person, as well as internet search histories can
provide indications as to what a person was thinking or looking in to before
committing a crime.However these evidences are highly circumstantial and have
no evidentiary value according to the 2021 judgement January 2021, the Punjab
and Haryana High Court granted bail to a man accused under the NDPS Act, after
noting that the Whatsapp messages would "have no evidentiary value" unless they
were certified under the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act
Hence proof of intention cannot be established via electronic evidences solely
25
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced an
authority cited the petition of most humbly praise before the honorable Supreme
Court of Vishweshwara to –
1. Quash the FIR and discharge petitioner from alleged case.
2. Declaration from the Supreme Court that section 69 of VNC is

unconstitutional and violates his fundamental rights
3. Acquit petitioner on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove
his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Grant protection of his reputation and privacy and provide damages for the
harm cause to him by the criminal proceedings
To pass any other order, direction or relief as this Hon’ble court deems fit, in the
interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
(Respectfully Submitted)
- Counsels on Behalf of the Petitioner
26

A&#39; TC (01)&#39; (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

A&#39; TC (01)&#39; (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

] GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

TEAM CODE: IMC24-01

GAUTAM BUDDHAUNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA

SPECIAL APPEAL TO PETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS........... ........................................................................................4

ACTS AND STATUTES..........................................................................................................6

ISSUES RAISED ......................................................................................................................... 9

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

1.1 PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI

1.2 THE MATTER INVOLVES SUSTAINTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

1.3 GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

2. I. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE VNC IS CONSTITUIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

II. WHETHER RANVEER LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 69 OF VNC

3. ADMISIABILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF INTENTION.

3.1 WHATSAPP CHATS; PRIMARY OR SECONARY EVIDENCE ?

UOV Union ofVishweshwara

VNC Vishweshwara Nyaya Code

SCR Supreme Court Record

SCC Supreme Court cases

No./ Nos. Number/Numbers

Resp.Answer Respondent Answer

Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat

Nihal Singh& ors. V. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

(Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC);

(C.C.E V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298

Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978;

A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988)

Kathi running Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123

Achyut Adhikari v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039

(Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)

(R.C. Copper v. Union of India, (2018)11 SCC 1

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib

Hariprasad Rao V. State (1951)SCR 322

i. H.M. Servaii, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., Universal

iii. Constitution of India by V.N Shukla

The case is set in the state ofBhageshwari in Vishweshwara, a quasi-federal state

At a Christmas party in December 2023, Karan expresses his feelings for

The Sessions Court convicts Ranveer based on WhatsApp messages as evidence

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court of

2. Whether Section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Whether Ranveer is

3. Whether Electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court of

➢ Electronic evidences are highly circumstantial and have no

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 has distinguishing features:

a. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgements, decrees or

The only conditions are -

In Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat3, it was contented by

In another case of Arunachalam vs P.S.R.Sadhanantham4, it was again

“Article 136 of the box station of Vishweshwara in West the

couched in the widest phraseology. (Nihal Singh& ors. V.

1.2 The matter involves question of law of general public importance

➢ The jurisdiction confirmed under article 136 on the Supreme

See also, A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988) and reasonable

1.3 The matter involves substantial question of law and gross

1.3.1 Substantial question of law is involved

1.3.2 Gross injustice has been done

a. Every breach of promise to marry is not a crime -

Courts have drawn distinction between rape and consensual sex

1.3.3 Finding of facts may give rise to substantial question of law

A' TC (01)' (1)

A' TC (01)' (1)