TEAM CODE:

____

IN THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO /2006

IN THE MATTER OF: NETWORK AGAINST GENDER BIAS (NAG

B) v. AMRIT SINGH

Network Against Gender Bias (NAG B) ..

APPELLANT

VERSUS

The State
RESPONDENTS

VITH TERM, LLB 3 YEARS COURSE, MOOT COURT PROBLEM-1,

2017

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................................................................... 3

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS............................................................................................... 4

WRITTEN PLEADINGS....................................................................................................... 6

PRAYER21

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 ii

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Abhyanand Mishra v State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698........................................................10

Aher Raja Khuna v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217.....................................................9
AG v. Leveller Magazine Ltd. [1979] AC 440.........................................................................18
AG v. Leveller Magazine Ltd. [1979] AC 440, p. 449.............................................................18
Attorney General v. BBC (1981) 3 All ER 161........................................................................17
Bavaji: AIR 1950 Mad 44........................................................................................................11
Court On Its Own Motion vs State,146 (2008) DLT 429.........................................................13
Gisborne Herald Co. Ltd. V. Solicitor General, 1995 (3) NZLR 563 (CA)............................17
Hargun Sunder Das Godeja v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 1514................................6
Hari Das v. Usha Rani Banik: AIR 2007 SC 2688..................................................................19
Her Majesty's Attorney-General and MGN Limited (News Group Newspapers Limited)
[2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)..............................................................................................20
Hinch v. Attorney General (1987) 164 CLR 26-27..................................................................18
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)......................................................................13
Khedu Mohan v. State of Bihar: AIR 1971 SC 66.....................................................................9
MAJW v R [2009] NSWCCA.....................................................................................................8
P.C Sen v. Unknown: AIR 1970 SC 1821................................................................................21
P.C. Sen In Re AIR 1970 SC 1821...........................................................................................17
Province of Bohar v. Bhagwat Prasad AIR 1949 Pat 307.......................................................10
Regina v Loosely [2001] UKHL 53.........................................................................................12
Regina v Shannon [2001] 1 WLR............................................................................................12
R v. Yakoob (1981) 72 Cr App R 313.........................................................................................6
R. v. Editor of New Statesman, ex parte DPP (1928) 44 TLR 301..........................................21
R. v. Gray [1900] 2 Q.B.D. 36.................................................................................................21
R. V. Maqsud Ali [1975] 2 All E.R. 46.......................................................................................6
R. V. Maqsud Ali [1975] 2 All E.R. 464.....................................................................................6
R. v. Robson [1972] 2 All E.R. 699............................................................................................6
Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3...........................................................................6
Re Oliver 333 U.S. 257, 273(1948)...........................................................................................7
Regina v Murray(1987) 11 NSWLR 12.....................................................................................7

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 iii

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express 1988 (4) SCC 592................17
Shankarlal Garasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1982 SC 1157.................................9
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333...........................................................................................15
Sherman v. United States (356 U.S. 369 (1958)......................................................................13
Sherman v. United States , 356 U.S. 369 (1958)......................................................................13
Smale v R (2007) NSWCCA 328...............................................................................................7
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)........................................................................13
South v R [2007] NSWCCA......................................................................................................8
State of Bihar v. Jagdish Narayan AIR 1959 pat 376..............................................................10
State of Madhya Pradesh v Narayan Singh: AIR 1989 SC 1789............................................11
Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (1998) 28 ECHR 101..............................................................14
The King v. MacFarlane; ex parte O Flanaghan and O Kelly 1923 32 (CLR) 518..............15
Uma Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 745.......................................................7
United States v Russel, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)...........................................................................13
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 147........................................6
Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC147........................................6

Other Authorities
nd
Borrie and Lowe: Law of Contempt, 2 Ed, 1983..................................................................19
Criminal Law Review 2006-The Problem of private entrapment by Kate Hoffmeyr..........12
JWC Turner, Attempt to Commit Offences, in Modern Approach to Criminal Law............10
Murphy on Evidence, 1997 Edition...........................................................................................6
New Zealand Law Commission, Juries in Criminal Trials (NZLC PP 37)..............................17
th
Rusell on Crime, 2010 Edition................................................................................................6
The Indian Police Journal..........................................................................................................7
The Nature of The Judicial Process by Benjamin N. Cardozo................................................17
The Road to Justice by Lord Denning.....................................................................................21

Treatises

Universal Declaration of Human Rights..................................................................................15

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

 iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

That the Respondent humbly submits the reply against the review petition filed by Network

Against Gender Bias (NAG B) against the impugned judgement delivered by this

Honble Court on 10-11-2006 under Article 137 of the Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT

 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. That on 3.11.2003 in the evening, Raj Preet Kaur @ Guddi, who was about
eight years old, and a student of IInd Standard went to the house of her
classmate and cousin, Amarpreet Kaur. At about 5.00 p.m., she left
from there to return to her house. She was accompanied to some
distance by Amarpreet. When she crossed pakka water house,
Amarpreet left her on her own. Raj Preet Kaur was last seen with Amrit
Singh, a 30 year old neighbour. She was seen walking holding his
finger. When Raj Preet Kaur did not reach her house, search was carried
on. Some persons then found her dead body in the agricultural field
belonging to Amrit Singh situated in front of his house .

B. That the dead body was found near a tree and some cotton crop was found near the dead
body. Some dry leaves were found in her hair. In her hand some strands of human hair
were also noticed. It was fully smeared with blood. There was bleeding from vulva and
the legs were also stained with blood. Body was in state of rigor mortis. There were
multiple marks of contusions and abrasions on the neck. Face also had some abrasions.
Abrasions over elbows and knuckle were present. There were impressions of teeth on the
lips. These were all ante mortem in nature.

C. That although external injuries were found on the neck which were said to be the cause of
death of the deceased, according to the doctor, the death took place because of loss of
blood. It was stated by him:-

"20% loss of blood may cause shock and death. Normally in a child of
6-7 years age there may be about 2 litres blood in body. On
examination of injuries it was found that more bleeding from the injury
has caused the death. In this case more than half litre blood had
oozed..."

D. That the Amarjit was prosecuted for rape and murder. The lower court
convicted him on both the counts and sentenced him to death penalty
which was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court
upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment.

E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
L.
 M. 2
N.
O.
E. That The Supreme Court noted as follows:-
P. Appellant, a neighbour and known to her was a person of trust. She was seen
to be holding Appellant's finger. It is clear that she was allured by Appellant to
accompany him to his own field which was near his house. Offence of rape took
place on an agricultural field. She might have suffered a lot of pain. She might have
resisted also. She might have been gagged. Possibilities of some assault on her person
cannot be ruled out. It would, however, be improper to hold that he killed her
intentionally. The death occurred not as a result of strangulation but because of
excessive bleeding. The death occurred, therefore, as a consequence of and not because
of any specific overt act on the part of Appellant.
Q.
R.
S. Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our
opinion, was, thus, improper. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a
rarest of rare cases. The manner in which the deceased was raped may
be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of
Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place. He had no pre-
meditation for commission of the offence. The offence may look
heinous, but under no circumstances, it can be said to be a rarest of
rare cases.
T.
F. The judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10-11-2006.
G. The review petition has been filed by the appellant on 11-12-2006.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
AB.
AC.
AD.
AE.
AF.
AG.
AH.
AI.
AJ.
AK.
AL.
AM.
AN.
AO.
AP.
AQ.
AR.
AS.
AT.
AU.
AV.
AW.
AX.
AY.
AZ.
BA.
BB.
BC.
BD.
BE.
BF. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 BG. 3
BH.
BI.
BJ. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
BK.
BL.
BM.
BN.
BO.
BP.I. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT CAN ACCET A REVIEW PETITION
FILED BY WOMEN ORGNIZATIONS WHO IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED PARTY
AND NOT BY STATE/AGGRIEVED PARTY
BQ.
BR. II. WHETHER THERE IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF
THE RECORD IN JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT DELIVERED ON 10.11.2006.
BS.
BT.III. WHETHER IT IS A RARE OF THE RAREST CASE TO AWARD DEATH
SENTENCE TO THE ACCUSED ON THE FACT AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD
?
BU.
BV.
BW.
BX.
BY.
BZ.
CA.
CB.
CC.
CD.
CE.
CF.
CG.
CH.
CI.
CJ.
CK.
CL.
CM.
CN.
CO.
CP.
CQ.
CR.
CS.
CT.
CU.
CV.
CW.
CX.
CY.
CZ.
DA.
DB.
DC.
DD.
DE.
DF.
DG.
DH.
DI. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 DJ. 4
DK.
DL.
DM.
DN.
DO. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
DP.
DQ.
DR.
DS. I. THAT THIS COURT MAY NOT ACCET A REVIEW PETITION
FILED BY WOMEN ORGNIZATIONS WHO IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED
PARTY AND NOT BY STATE/VICTIM
DT.
DU.
DV.
DW. A) That the review petition is not maintainable as the appellant is third
party/stranger:
DX.
DY.
DZ. II. THAT THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF
THE RECORD IN JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT DELIVERED ON
10.11.2006.
EA.
EB.
A) That as per guidelines of Supreme Court i ftheviewadoptedbytheCourtintheoriginaljudgmentis
apossibleviewhavingregardtowhattherecordstates,itisdifficulttoholdthatthereisanerrorapparent
onthefaceoftherecord.
EC.
B) That thereisnomaterialerror,manifestonthefaceoftheorder,underminesitssoundnessorresultsin
miscarriageofjustice.
ED.
EE.
EF.
EG.
EH. III. THAT IT IS NOT A RARE OF THE RAREST CASE TO AWARD
DEATH PENALTY TO THE ACCUSED ON THE FACT AND EVIDENCES ON
RECORD
EI.
EJ.
EK.
EL.A) That this is not a Rare of the Rarest Case.
EM.
B) That there is no special reason exists in this case for awarding death sentence.
EN.
C) That life sentence is the rule and the death sentence is the exception.
EO.
1
EP.
EQ.
ER.
ES.
ET.
EU.
EV.
EW.
EX.
EY.
EZ.
FA.
FB.
FC.MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
FD.
 FE. 5
FF.
FG.
FH.
FI.
FJ.
FK.
FL.
FM.
FN.
FO.
FP.
FQ.
FR.
FS.
FT.
FU.
FV.
FW.
FX.
FY.
FZ.
GA.
GB.
GC.
GD.
GE.
GF.
GG.
GH.
GI.
GJ.
GK.
GL.
GM.
GN.
GO.
GP.
GQ.
GR.
GS.
GT.
GU.
GV.
GW.
GX.
GY.
GZ.
HA.
HB.
HC.
HD.
HE.
HF.
HG.
HH.
HI.
HJ.
HK.
HL.
HM.
HN.
HO.
HP.
HQ.
HR.
HS.
HT.
HU.
HV.
HW.
HX.
HY.
HZ.
IA. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 IB. 6
IC.
ID. WRITTEN PLEADINGS
IE.
IF.
IG. I. THAT THIS COURT MAY NOT ACCET A REVIEW PETITION FILED BY
WOMEN ORGNIZATIONS WHO IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED PARTY AND NOT BY
STATE/VICTIM
IH.
(A) That the review petition is not maintainable as the appellant is third party/stranger:

II. Regarding the system of administration of criminal justice in India, this Court
in Thakur Ram and Others v. The State of Bihar, while examining the right of a
third party to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under the Code of 1898, had
observed as under :

IJ. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private

vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that
party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the
party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian
of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to
take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the
social interests of the community to book.

IK. In Panchhi and Others v. State of U.P., this Court have refused leave to the
National Commission for Women to intervene in an appeal before this Court
wherein a young mother was facing execution of the capital sentence imposed
on her on the ground that the National Commission for Women or for that
matter any other organization cannot have locus standi in a criminal case.

IL. This Court has also been slow in approving third party intervention in criminal
proceedings on grounds of larger public interest. In Janta Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary and Others, the public interest litigation petitioner was held to
have no locus to bring a public interest litigation seeking certain directions in
a matter of issuance of a letter of rogatory/request to the Swiss Government in
an investigation that was then pending in what came to be popularly known as
the Bofors case. Similarly, in Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India and Anr.
[5] this Court had declined leave to the President of a recognized political
party, namely, Akali Dal (M) to challenge, under Article 32of the Constitution,
the conviction and sentence of the accused found guilty of the offence
under Section 302 IPC. The view taken by this Court in Simranjit Singh Mann
(supra) seems to be based on the fact that petitioner before this Court was a
total stranger to the offence committed by the accused whereas in Janta Dal
(supra) the public interest litigation petitioner was found to have a personal
and private interest in the matter. [para 119 of the Report in Janta Dal
(supra)].

IM. In the present case, the appellant is a women organization is third party
and stranger to the case. The cause of action has not been arisen directly or
indirectly against the appellant. The State is the party in criminal cases and
hence review petition by a women organization is not maintainable before this
Honble Court in the present criminal case.
IN.
IO. S. 322, Polkrainian Penal Code, 2006
21 IP.
Abhyanand Mishra v State of Bihar: AIR 1961 SC 1698
22 IQ.
State of Bihar v. Jagdish Narayan AIR 1959 pat 376
IR.
IS.
IT. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 IU. 7
IV.
IW.
IX. II) THAT THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IN
JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT DELIVERED ON 10.11.2006.
IY.
IZ.
JA. In Criminal Jurisprudence, Burden of proof and a very high standard of proof is
required on the part of prosecution. It is a principle of Criminal law that conviction of
serious crime should depend upon proof that Actus Reus was accompanied by
Mens Rea1. In a criminal proceeding, review is permissible on the ground of an error
apparent on the face of the record2. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
JB.
JC.
JD. A) That as per guidelines of Supreme Court i f the view adopted by the Court in the
original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is
difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
JE.
JF. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered
by this Court merely' for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case.
The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to do so 3. In a criminal proceeding an
application for review is entertained only on the ground of an error apparent on the
face of the record4. But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute
that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and
the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except
"where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility"5.
JG.
JH. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to
hold that the controversy could be said to admit of only one of them. If the view
adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to
what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face
of the record. In the present judgment of Supreme Court, there is only one view and
the same has been adopted by this Honble Court in the original judgment and hence
it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the said judgment.
The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute
a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review6.
JI.
1 JJ. on Crime, 2010th Edition
Rusell
2 JK.
M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd v. Lt Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167
3 JL.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
4 JM.
Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966
5
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib
6 Lily Thomas and Ors v. UOI & ors,
(2000)6SCC224
JN.
JO.
JP.
JQ.
JR.
JS.

JT.
JU.
JV. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 JW. 8
JX.
JY.
JZ. B) That there is no material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
KA.
KB.
KC. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that
material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results
in miscarriage of justice. This Court has already held as under7 :
KD.

KE. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at
length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot
review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

KF. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib this Court observed:

KG. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper

only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier
by judicial fallibility....

KH.
KI. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the
record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error
of inadvertence6.
KJ.
KK.The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality. This case does not fall under this category as there is no
material error being sought for review.

KL.
KM.
KN.
KO. 7
KP. Col Avtar Singh Sekhon v. UOI, 1980 (Supra) SCC 562
KQ.
KR.
KS.
KT.
KU.
KV.
KW.
KX.
KY.
KZ.
LA.
LB.
LC.
LD.
LE. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
LF.
 LG. 9
LH.
LI.
LJ.III) THAT IT IS NOT A RARE OF THE RAREST CASE ON THE FACT AND
EVIDENCES ON RECORD ?
LK.
LL. III) THAT DEATH PENALTY CAN BE AVOIDED IN THE PRESENT
CASE ?
LM.
LN.
LO.
A) That life sentence is the rule and the death sentence is the exception.
LP.
LQ.In India, death penalty is prescribed for murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting
the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the government and
abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces. Capital punishment is also
awarded under some anti-terror laws for those convicted of terrorist activities.
LR.

LS. Generally, courts award life imprisonment to convicts in a murder case. Only in

rarest of rare cases, murder convicts are given death penalty. Death sentence is

imposed on the convict only when the court comes to the conclusion that life

imprisonment is inadequate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case.

LT. In 1980, in the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court propounded the rarest of

rare doctrine and since then, life sentence is the rule and the death sentence the

exception. There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare. It depends upon facts

and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender,

previous history of his involvement in crime, chances of reforming and integrating him

into the society etc. Supre Court in this case said that Death penalty should be

imposed when collective conscience of the society is so shocked that it will expect

the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their

personal opinion as regards desirability of otherwise of retaining death penalty.

LU. The generally applied test while sentencing a convict to death is whether the

survival of an orderly society demands extinction of life of the person who has

committed the offence and whether failure to impose death sentence on him would

bring to naught the sentence of death provided under Section 302 of IPC. Pre-
 planned, brutal, cold-blooded and sordid nature of a crime, without giving any chance

to the victim, are generally taken into account to decide whether a particular case

falls within the parameters of rarest of rare.

LV.
LW.
LX.
LY.
LZ. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 MA. 10
MB.
MC.
MD. The crime has to be viewed from various angles manner of commission of
murder, motive for commission of murder, anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of
crime and magnitude and personality of victim of murder.
ME.
MF.It is pertinent to mention that the Dhananjoy Chatterjee (2004) who was hanged for
the murder and rape of a 14-year old girl in Kolkata, was the countrys first execution
since April 27, 1995, when Auto Shankar, a serial killer, was executed in Salem, Tamil
Nadu. Also, this Court did not inclined to award death sentence to the convicts in the
Graham Staines, Jessica Lall and Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases on the ground
that these did not fall within the category of rarest of rare.
MG.
MH. The present case is also not considered by this Court in his judgment as
rarest of rare. Hence, the justice ends with life imprisonment in this case.

MI.
B) That there is no special reason exists in this case for awarding death sentence.
MJ.
MK.
ML. Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which was added to
the Code in 1973, requires a judge to give special reasons for awarding death
sentences. Capital punishment can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme
culpability and in choosing the sentence the condition of the convict is also to be
taken into account.
MM.
MN. This court has found that there is no any special reasons exist in this case for
awarding death sentence to the accused.
MO.
MP.
MQ.
MR.
MS.
MT.

MU.
MV.
MW. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
 MX. 11
MY.
MZ.
NA. PRAYER
NB.
NC.
ND. WHEREFORE, in light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it
is most humbly submitted and respectfully requested that :
NE.
A) This court may dismiss the review petition filed by Network Against Gender Bias
(NAG B).
NF.
NG.
B) The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
NH.
NI.
NJ.
NK.
NL.
NM. Respectfully
Submitted,
NN.
NO. All of which is most
humbly prayed
NP.
NQ. COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANT
NR.
NS.
NT.
NU.
NV.
NW.
NX.
NY.
NZ.
OA.
OB.
OC.
OD.
OE.
OF.
OG.
OH.
OI.
OJ.
OK.
OL.
OM.
ON.
OO.
OP.
OQ.
OR.
OS. MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT
OT.
OU.
OV.
OW.
OX.
OY.
OZ.
PA.
PB.
PC.