RTC 01 FINAL

O[[[[==
GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVESITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

TEAM CODE: IMC24-01
GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY , INTRA MOOT , 2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: 1/ 2024

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
RANVEER ... APPELLANT
V.
DEEPIKA ... RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansion
AIR All India Reporter
Acc. According
Hon’ble Honorable
& And
UOV Union of Vishweshwara
Art Article
VNC Vishweshra 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
BOOKS & REFRENCES
1.Commentary on IPC by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal
2. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla
3. Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi
4. Indian Evidence Act by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal.
5. Text book on IPC by K.D. Gaur
LINKS
1. manupatra.com
2. highcourt.nic.in
3. supremecourtofindia.nic.in
4. indiatoday.in
5. timesofindia.indiatimes.com
6. indiankanoon.org
7. advocatekhoj.com
8. indpaedia.com
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
1 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
2 Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6 Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7 Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806
8 Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
9 Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358
10 Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
11 DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
12 Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
13 Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622
14 Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563 15 Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra,
AIR 2005 SC 1299
16 Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
18 Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC) 19 Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary,
Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186
20 Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
21 Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
22 City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143 23 Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics
Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253 24 Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction under article 136 of Constitution of India
as it reads as follows:-
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 judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces.
The special Leave Petition can be filed when there is gross injustice or the High Court has
ignored the Substantial question of law. But there has been no gross injustice occurred to the
petitioner and hence the same can be dismissed.
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The case is set in the state of Bhageshwari 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.
8
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court of Vishweshra
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?
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court of

Vishweshwara?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this
special leave petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no gross
injustice has occurred to the petitioner. And also, Sessions Court has not ignored any
substantial question of law at the time of delivering the judgment. Hence the same
should be dismissed by the Supreme Court of India
2. Whether Section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Whether Ranveer is

liable for punishment under Section 69 of VNC?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara that
the section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid in nature as it does not violate any
fundamental rights of the citizens as well as it provides an umbrella protection to the
community that is socially marginalized and is a preventive law against the malpractices
in the society and Ranveer is liable to punishment under this section due to his promise to
marry Deepika and subsequent desertion that leads to ostracization by society and
questions upon her integrity upon Deepika, which also results in emotional trauma
3. Whether electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara that
the electronic evidence if proved along with mens rea can in some cases be admissible as
proof of intention, if all the evidences collected are legally, voluntarily submitted by the
complainant, or obtained by the court via notice if it deems reasonable and using the
original device which was used during such communication.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT
1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is
not maintainable
1.1.1 Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
1
circumstances Pritam Singh v. The State2 , the Supreme Court held that the power under Article
136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding the discussion on
Article 136 in the same case, it was held the by the Supreme Court that ‘Generally speaking, this
court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances
exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.’
1.1.2 Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless3 , adjunctive, and unassailable4 ,
in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India5 and Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri6 , it
was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in accordance
with law and set legal principles.
1.1.3 In the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi7 and Shivanand Gaurishankar
Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills8 , the Supreme Court has criticized the approach of
settling private disputes under Article 136, stating that it would lead to confusing results and
lack of precedents. The Court observed that the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is
error of law in the impugned order9 .
1 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9

SCC 196 Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC
169
3 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6 Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7 Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806
8 Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
9 Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358
11
1.2 Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:
1.2.1 If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any judicial
standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the Supreme
Court to intervene 10 he Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of the High Court, but,
did not interfere in the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does not interfere with the
conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal if it has taken all the relevant factors into consideration and
there has been no misapplication of the principles of law11 .
1.2.2 Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not
interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal and the High
Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some important piece of evidence has been
omitted from consideration12 .
1.2.3 A question is not allowed to be raised for the first time in an appeal before the
Supreme Court13. It would refuse a question to be developed before it when it had neither
been urged before the High Court nor before the Appellate Tribunal14 .
1.2.4 Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice of the Supreme Court is
not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the finding is such that it
shocks the conscience of the court15 .
1.3 Scope of Powers under Article 136:
1.3.1 It is humbly submitted that if Special Leave is granted, the matter is registered as an
appeal and the Court does not take into cognizance all the points that may arise on appeal and
decide them on Merits16 . The Supreme Court has also held that “it is not bound to go into
merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point our the error – still we may not
interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the
relief could be moulded in a different fashion.”17
1.3.2 The Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala18 held that Article 136 consists of
two distinct stages, the first stage where the matter is merely being decided if it is to be accepted
12
as an appeal or not; if the Supreme Court decides to adjudicate the matter, it becomes an
appeal, if otherwise, the matter was never an appeal.
1.3.3 Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that by reason of lack of any specific
matter that requires the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, the Court need not entertain the
matter; however, if this Hon’ble Court does decide to accept the Petition for Special Leave, it
is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court only adjudicate upon the order of the Bombay
High Court, i.e., not to hear this Appeal on merits, but merely, on the right place of suing.
1.4 Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:
1.4.1 The Supreme Court has exercised its Jurisdiction under Article 136 under the
following circumstances-
(i) When the Tribunal ostensibly fails to exercise its patent jurisdiction.19
(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision20 .
(iii) The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence21
(iv) The tribunal acts against the principles of Natural Justice22, or has approached the
question in a manner likely to cause injustice23
1.4.2 In the instant case, the Bombay High Court has not committed any error in law. The High
Court has respected the subsisting contract between the parties and has observed that it was not
the right forum for adjudicating the matter. There is no breach in law or natural justice; to say the
decision of the Bombay High Court was wrong would be wrong because the matter has not been
adjudicated on merits whatsoever. Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that no
grounds can be made out for accepting this petition for Special Leave.
1.5 Grounds of rejection:
1.5.1 In Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another24, it was held that a petition
seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons The question raised
by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration or deserving being
13
dealt with by the Apex Court; it is humbly submitted that there is no ground for invoking this
Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction under Article 13
10 Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
11 DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
12 Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
13 Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622
14 Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563
15 Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299
18 Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)
19 Chief Administrator cum Jt. Secretary, Government of India v. D. C. Dass, AIR 1999 SC 186
20 Siemens Eng & Mfg Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785
21 Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78
22 City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143
23 Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253
24 Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359
14
2.1 Section 69 of the BNSS is constitutionally valid
The proposed BNS Bill would bring about changes in this regard which merits a closer scrutiny.
Clause 69 of the said bill states, “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.”
While proposing to criminalise deception in the procurement of sex, there is still a lack of
clarity as to what ‘kind’ of deception this would include since there is persisting vagueness even
after the insertion of the explanation.
Moving to the central focus of this note, which is a false promise of marriage, the proposed
legislation lays down three ingredients to be fulfilled:
1. The accused makes a promise to marry,
2. The promise is without any intention of being fulfilled, and
3. The accused has sexual intercourse with the victim.
There are significant changes this new offense would make to the jurisprudence on promise to
marry. Firstly, this would create a new offense which is separate from ‘rape’. Secondly, the
proposed punishment would be significantly lower; while a rape charge carries a minimum
sentence of ten years, the same is the maximum sentence prescribed under this new offence.
Thirdly, it does not require knowledge on part of the man that the consent has been given under a
misconception of fact. Lastly, it throws out the requirement for the consent of women to be based
on the deception.90 Therefore, if there is a false promise and sex subsequently, an offense is
established.
This provision centralises the ‘deceit’ rather than the presence or absence of consent. What this
might mean for the promise to marry jurisprudence in India is that it could lead to a reduced
reliance on assumptions and prejudices of the fact finder in the finding of guilt.
15
The current legal framework does not give recognition to this subjectivity of women. For
instance, in Bodhisattava Gautam v. Chakraborty, the petitioner had asked for maintenance
against a partner with whom she had had a long relationship, been through two abortions at his
behest, and yet was abandoned despite a longstanding promise to marry. Here the claim was
only for maintenance and yet the Supreme Court constructed this as a case of rape.
The fact that a claim of maintenance for breach of promise to marry was interpreted as ‘rape’
shows how in constructing consent in promise to marry cases in this manner, what the women
actually wants gets sidelined. However there are constant legal efforts being taken by activists
and protestors to make improvements to make a change in the legislature.
Legislative measure to ensure social relations
The Council for respondent Humbly argues Aim the honorable court that section 69 is a valid
exercise of the state’s power to regulate social relations between citizens and to protect the
dignity and autonomy of individuals especially belonging to socially marginalized groups
It should be noted that this provision is designed to prevent fraudulent and deceptive practices
in the context of romantic relationships and to uphold the values of trust honesty and
commitment. In Sivananthan v. the state It was held that the accused had sexual intercourse
with the plaintiff for several times by giving her a false promise to marry her.
The breach of promise also holds implications for a women’s chastity and virginity which in the
eyes of the law is considered a form of property thus stealing the Chastity of a woman is
considered an injury to her reputation and sexual purity is deemed a valuable component of this
perceived property.
In Smt. Suman V. Surendra Kumar, AIR 2003 RAJ 155 In this instance dealt with the breach of
promise to Marry and the subsequent impact on the mental and emotional well being of the
aggrieved party in the court emphasized the need for general intent in making a promise to marry
and consider the emotional distress suffered by the grief party as a valid claim for damages.
16
2.2 Ranbir’s liability for deceitful conduct contrary to promise to marry
The Council correspondent argues that Ranveer made a promise to marry her on
multiple occasions like -
During their cohabitation , in the year 2022-2023 There are multiple WhatsApp chats from both
the sides that both of them are planning a future together as a couple
th
on 24 December ,2024
When asked by their friends Ranveer cheerfully said “they knew that they are going to
marry each other ,it’s just a matter of time”
After the escalated argument between respondent and Ranveer . his conduct of Desertion and
refusal to fulfil that promise amount to deceitful conduct contrary to the promise to marry under
section 69 of the VNC
It is to be brought into notice that his conduct caused the respondent to suffer from emotional
distress loss of reputation and other harms and he is therefore liable for punishment under the
statue. Indian society placed immense importance on the institution of marriage framing it as
a sacred bond with societal and familiar implications.
The promise to marry was regarded as a solemn commitment and any breach was seen as a
betrayal not only the individuals but also to their families and in today’s society the legal
system has taken influence by the societal norms and recognized and addressed breaches of
such promises within the framework of law amounting it to be a cognizable offense under VNC
Noting the aforesaid It becomes necessary and fundamental to hold Ranveer liable for
his decideful conduct under section 69 of the VNC.
Credibility of Karan a as witness
The counsel for respondent argues that Karan is a credible witness who can testify to
Ranbir’s promise to marry her. Karan is her childhood friend and that he has no reason to
fabricate any evidence against Ranveer.
17
It is also considerable to note that the current was present at the Allege statement regarding
th
the promise to marry was made on 24 December 2023 therefore he can provide eyewitness
testimony which is usually considered as more reliable than hearsay evidence -
“In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Chandu and others conviction based on sole testimony
of an interested eye witness can be made. The court held that it is prudent to corporate
evidence of the interested eye witness. The rule for such conviction is subjected to the
limitation that the testimony of such a witness is trustworthy and consistent the court can rely
upon the deposition of such witness.”
In the judicial system eyewitness testimony plays an important role in the trial procedure for
maintaining justice in all criminal trials, it is necessary to reconstruct the facts from past events
determine the fate of the accused the details of such events are provided by the eyewitness which
helped them in reconstructing the incident this type of testimony can be particularly influential
when there is a lack of other supporting evidence or when contradicts other evidence offering a
unique perspective on the events in question.
In State of Punjab vs Gurmeet Singh, 1996 the Supreme Court held that the prosecutor was
reliable and thrustful witness as the testimony has no informative or blemish it added we have
no hesitation in acting upon a testimony alone without looking for any corrobation
In another subsequent case- Ganesan V. State, 2020 : In this case the appellant accused was
convicted for the offense punishable under POCSO Act and the Supreme Court held map the sole
eye witness is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality
Karan’s testimony is consistent with other evidence presented in this case such as the Whatsapp
charts between Deepika and Ranveer
It does not appear that current has any bias or personal interest in the outcome of this case there
has no reason to fabricate evidence against Ranbir or support Deepika allegation unless he
believes them to be true.
In conclusion based on the above-mentioned factors it is highly likely that Karan’s testimony is
credible and reliable therefore it is crucial that his testimony should be considered in this case
to ensure the justice is served
18
3. Whether electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?
3.1 What is electronic evidence?
Section 2(t) of the IT Act defines ‘electronic record’ which means data, record or data
generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an ‘electronic form’ or microfilms or
computer-generated microfiche.
Section 4 of the IT Act defines Legal recognition of electronic records
Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the
typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such
requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is— (a)
rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for
a subsequent reference.
Indian Evidence Act sections
Section 61 : Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or
digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such
record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as
other document.
Section 63 Electronic records as documentary evidence:

In order to keep pace with the digital era, electronic and digital records have been specifically
brought under the ambit of ‘documentary evidence’ in the BSA. This includes electronic records
on emails, server logs, documents on computers, laptops or smartphones, messages, websites,
locational evidence, and voice mail messages stored on digital devices. The BSA provides that
such records will have the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as any other document.
As a result of such a classification, electronic or digital records are now categorized as ‘primary
evidence’ under Section 57 of the BSA. Under the IEA, primary evidence referred to original
records, whereas secondary evidence referred to records that can prove the original records'
contents. This clearly acknowledges the shift from traditional paper-based systems to
19
contemporary electronic communication and data storage forms. However, despite electronic
records being primary evidence under the BSA, a ‘certificate of authentication’ (similar to the
certificate contemplated under Section 65B of the IEA) is still required to be issued as per the
Schedule to the BSA. While such a requirement may be with the aim of preventing tampering,
this still raises questions as to the effectiveness of classifying the same as primary evidence.
It is also pertinent to highlight that the BSA has omitted references to its territorial extent,
possibly in order to overcome admissibility related challenges pertaining to evidence generated
outside India (especially digital evidence).
3.2 Admissibility of such evidence in court of law
Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in

digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. Before accepting digital evidence it is
vital that the determination of its relevance, veracity and authenticity be ascertained by the
court and to establish if the fact is hearsay or a copy is preferred to the original.
Justice Nariman also agreed with the view taken in Anvar v. Basheer 2014 10 SCC 473 – which
held that Section 65B is a complete code in itself for the admissibility of electronic evidence and
shall not be affected by other provisions of the Evidence Act. Anvar v. Basheer also held that –
“…if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence
Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B
of the Evidence Act.” Justice Nariman clarified that this dictum should be read by omitting the
words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act.” This is because Section 65B is a complete code
for electronic evidence and shall supersede other provisions such as Section 62.
Justice Nariman implies here that it is not necessary to refer to Section 62, as Section 65B(1)
itself distinguishes between the original electronic record and the secondary copies of the
electronic record, according to Indian evidence Act 1872
In Som Prakash vs. State Of Delhi 1974 AIR 989 the Supreme Court has rightly observed that
“in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than denying discoveries
and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral evidence only
20
thereby discouraging the liberal use of scientific aids to prove guilt.” Statutory changes are
needed to develop more fully a problem-solving approach to criminal trials and to deal
with heavy workload on the investigators and judges.
Under Vishweshwara Evidence Act,1872 :
Electronic or digital evidence is any data that is stored or transmitted digitally is secondary
evidence. Electronic records' evidentiary value is generally examined under section 65A and
65B
The sections state that if the four conditions listed are fulfilled, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in an optical media,
created by a computer is considered to be a document and is admissible in proceedings without
any additional confirmation or production of the original, as evidence of any contacts of the
original or any facts expressed in that, which direct evidence would be acceptable.
The four conditions alluded to above are:
1. The computer output containing such information ought to have been delivered by the
computer when the computer was utilized consistently to store, or handle data for any
exercises routinely carried on during that period by the individual having legal
command over the utilization of the computer.
2. During such period, data of the kind contained in the electronic record was
consistently fed into the computer in the ordinary course of such exercises.
3. Throughout the material piece of such period, the computer must be working
appropriately. On the off chance that the computer was not appropriately working during
such period, it should be indicated that this didn't influence the electronic record or the
precision of the contents.
4. The data contained in the electronic record ought to be as reproduced or derived
from such data fed into the computer in the ordinary course of such activities.
21
Our respondent Deepika had submitted original device which contained the communications,
which was utilized routinely for the purpose of communication with petitioner Ranveer during
the course of their relationship, to the police officials voluntarily with Karan providing
witness testimony for the same evidence stating that Ranver had conveyed on multiple
occasions his intention to marry Deepika to her .
3.3 Mens rea
Digital forensics is critical to law enforcement in resolving conflicts in both civil and criminal
cases by providing vital and relevant evidence. Examples of its applicability in civil cases
include those involving Intellectual Property theft, Industrial espionage, Employment
disputes, Bankruptcy investigations, etc. Examples of its applicability in criminal cases
include cybercrimes such as unauthorised hacking, theft of data, Digital Fraud investigations,
Cyber terrorism, DDOS attacks, etc.
However, Digital Evidence can assist in confirming the validity of alibis or witness statements.
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. For example, there are many instances
where killers look up guides to killing people or how to purchase illegal weapons.
Proof of intention although it may be conclusive and is considered highly circumstantial even
if it is obtained legally by the investigating agencies cannot conclusively provide an
evidentiary value solely.
However, electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention when obtained legally from the
complainant voluntarily or on orders of the court and is on the original device which was used
for such purpose.
22
PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly submits that the
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
(1) The special leave petition should be dismissed,
(2) Ranveer should be punished under section 69 of VNC
(3) Deepika should be compensated for any amount that the court deems fit for emotional
damages caused
AND / OR
Any other just and equitable order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray
23
24

RTC 01 FINAL

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

RTC 01 FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

O[[[[==

GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVESITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY , INTRA MOOT , 2024

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: 1/ 2024

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

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

UOV Union of Vishweshwara

VNC Vishweshra Nyaya Code

SCR Supreme Court Record

SCC Supreme Court cases

No./ Nos. Number/Numbers

Resp. Answer Respondent Answer

BOOKS & REFRENCES

1.Commentary on IPC by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal

2. Constitution of India by V.N. Shukla

3. Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi

4. Indian Evidence Act by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal.

5. Text book on IPC by K.D. Gaur

1 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196

2 Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169

3 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546

4 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467

5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618

6 Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15

7 Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806

9 Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358

10 Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573

11 DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414

13 Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622

16 Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104

17 Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104

21 Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court ---

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

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 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. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

1 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9

1.2 Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:

1.3 Scope of Powers under Article 136:

1.4 Grounds on which appeal are granted not satisfied:

(ii) When there is an apparent error on the face of the decision20 .

(iii) The tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence21

1.5 Grounds of rejection:

10 Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573

11 DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414

13 Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622

14 Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563

15 Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299

16 Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104

17 Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104

18 Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)

21 Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78

22 City Corner v. P.A. to the Collector, AIR 1976 SC 143

23 Mohan Lal v. Management, Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253

2.1 Section 69 of the BNSS is constitutionally valid

Explanation – “deceitful means” shall include the false promise of employment or

1. The accused makes a promise to marry,

2. The promise is without any intention of being fulfilled, and

3. The accused has sexual intercourse with the victim.