Moot Problems:

1. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, met with an accident on 10.10.2012. As a result of the accident, he
sustained injuries for which he was taken to a small hospital, Don Bosco Hospital. He
was unconscious at the time, but since there was no advanced equipment in that hospital,
he was rushed to Nelson Smith Hospital. 2. At Nelson Smith, his X-rays, scans and other
tests were carried out whereby a fracture of the mid-shaft of the right femur was detected.
Thereafter, he was referred to specialist hospital namely Dr. B.N. Sandok Memorial
Hospital and Dr. K.K. Sinha who was well-known orthopaedic surgeon, took charge of
the patient under personal care.At the time of admission in the hospital he was conscious,
then Dr. Sinha decided to conduct open reduction of fracture and internal fixation under
anaesthesia. As operation procedure was on, they found that some equipment was not
performing at optimal level. 3. But, Dr. Sinha was of the view that level of performance
of equipment was manageable, so they go ahead with the operation, in view of the
urgency of the situation. The equipments involved included the machines used for
monitoring of oxygen supply and the retention level of anaesthesia. After the operation
the patient was kept under the observation but he did not regain consciousness for 24
hours, for which he was referred to Rajiv Gandhi Multi-Specialty Hospital, on the ground
that respirator was not functioning in the Sandok Hospital. 4. A team of three senior
doctors, with no anaesthetic among them made an investigation on the patient, before
commencing any treatment and held that the operation procedure followed by Sandok
Hospital was extremely deficient, that the doctors put into service equipment that they
knew to be defective, yet they proceeded to operate on the patient and that now second
operation was now inevitable, although the chance of survival is lesser now. But it was
conducted on urgent basis, however the patient did not survive the operation. The
relatives filed an FIR complaining of murder by management and doctors of Sandok
Hospital with charges of criminal negligence of murder. Though Sessions Court did not
found sufficient evidence against accused and acquitted them. The case is now on appeal
before the High Court of Delhi.

2. In the Republic of Tranvenia, the capital Carakun is the most advanced city, having rich
infrastructure and provides best possible medical facilities. While, there being rich
natural resources available with the state, the corruption remains the main issue to deal
with. Awadhesh, a poor sweeper in his 40's developed chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease even without tobacco smoking, as occupational exposure to dust leads to an
obstructive pattern among sweepers. His daily wage of Rs. 300 was not enough to meet
both, his medical and ration expenses for family of six, the couple and four children.
Since, he being illiterate and ignorant about govt. insurance schemes, he was left with no
cover and hence he th headed to the govt. hospital for checkup on 30 of September 2014,
where he had to wait for the physician in OPD for four hours, who advised him to go for
a tuberculin skin test, other scans and X-rays, surgical biopsy in a private clinic Makowen
Labs, because X ray machines in the govt. hospitals were out of order and pathological
tests/blood test facility was beyond question because of unavailability of Doctors who
were on leave for three days.

The Doctor Mr.Gabbaria advised him in oral to go for Morx Flod hospital which is most
advanced hospital in the state. Regarding free checkup , he gave a written reference. On
3rd of July, Dr. Daygem asked Awadhesh to be admitted in the hospital for a week long
observation. When enquired about the cost involved, the Doctor assured him to be as
minimal as possible. He was given a form where he gave his thumb impression, details of
which was not read out, but three witness were present. This was a mere admission form
where he authorizes the Doctor to perform tests and surgeries involved to cure his issues
and if in this course he dies, the Hospital shall not be responsible. The form was
accompanied with an undertaking to pay subsidized cost of seven days accommodation
which includes-Bed, Visit by doctors, pathological tests, food, other facilities like
wheelchairs etc. in total Rs. 14000 only. In hospital he used to talk about his poverty and
deteriorating condition all the time. The two attendants Mr. Jeane and Mr. Greye used to
make fun of his poverty and they even gave him unnecessary sleeping pills. th 4 of July-
He insisted to leave for work because his family needs to fed, but was denied, because he
was in treatment and hospital has not realized the sum as per undertaking. With extreme
agony and pain, he assaulted two hospital staffs Mr. Jeane and Mr. Greye. th 5 of July-
He received a message that his whole family committed suicide, not bearing the hunger.
But he was still restricted to his room and whenever he attempts to run, hospital security
guard ensures his return to his bed. Enraged by this attitude of the hospital staff he even
threatened to commit suicide by saying “Either permit me to go home or I will commit
suicide and will make u people being hanged for abating me to commit suicide”. But the
hospital staff didn't pay any attention in this regard. th 6 of July – His health was
improving and he was feeling better now. He asked Dr. Daygem to relieve him. He was
allowed to leave, but by paying the sum assured +13 % tax that amounted to Rs. 15820.
They threatened him that if would not pay then they will lodge a criminal case against
him for assaulting Ms. Jeane Mr. Greye and non payment of sum undertaken and duly
thumb printed. He was not in condition to pay. He thought for a while and put before
doctor a deal that he would sell his kidney for INR 75000 after deducting INR 15820 for
 treatment. The doctor discussed with others about the deal and finally they agreed. But he
was not given a single rupee, since there was no instrument involved to prove the
transaction. th 7 of July- He was discharged and in severe pain. He went to police station
near his home and reported the entire incident and even told them that he was abetted to
commit suicide by those hospital attendants who wished to blackmail hospital authorities
for money. But no FIR was lodged. He, then went to the Magistrate but it was all in vain.

The Magistrate refused to entertain his case. He committed suicide by hanging in his
house. The deceased was having a son from his first wife whom he had left for his second
marriage. But the son was very much attached to him. Aggrieved by the news of his
father's committing suicide. He lodged an FIR against the hospital authorities and the
police officers for abatement of suicide. page 5 MOOT PROBLEM continued-3 When
the matter was laid before the Hon'ble District Court the court held that it was a case of
suicide as hospital authorities succeeded in proving that his mental condition was not
good. The matter is listed for hearing before the High Court of the Republic of Tranvenia
, Argue on behalf of petitioner and State.

3. Mr. Anil and Mrs. Anil were married in 2016 and were residents of Mangalore in
Karnataka State as he was working there in shipping and fishing company.
After 4 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Anil became aware that she cannot give
birth to a healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical report kept
secretly by her husband. As per that report he suffered from some serious congenital
medical problem that may pass on to their child. Although she was interested, her
husband is not interested even to adopt a child.
When they came to her in-laws house, they had quite a big fight in this regard that he
never told her about his health problem either prior to her marriage or thereafter but kept
the information secretly. She remained in her in-laws house under their care as her
husband went for employment training programme to Cochin for two months. .
After some time Mr. Anil learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child,
developed extra marital relationship with his office colleague, Mr. Naik, but did not
object to the same. Mr. Naik confessed to his wife that he had illicit relationship with
 Mrs. Anil. Mrs. Naik filed a complaint against her husband as ‘main accused,’ Mrs. Anil
as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Anil as ‘an abettor’ as he, through his silence and
acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs. Anil and her husband
to indulge in ‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She pleaded that she too shall be
recognized as ‘aggrieved person’ as her matrimonial life was disturbed with these
developments.Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme
Court with a plea that S. 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it
violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Indian Constitution on the ground that the relevant
section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives ‘immunity only to adulteress but not to men’
when both are equally guilty.

As a matter of principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be observed in criminal

law. Mrs. Naik also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497
in the Supreme Court as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also
submits that such ‘total immunity cannot be given to Mrs. Anil, the adulteress.
She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional
for it ‘discriminates on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian
Constitution. Mrs. Naik also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her
husband under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Anil also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Mrs. Anil objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in
reality non disclosure of his serious health problem has brought forth this state of
affairs’.
In a new twist to the legal saga of both families, Mr. Anil and Mr. Naik moved joint
application for compounding of the offence under the provisions of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Meanwhile, Mr. Naik’s application ‘for stay of criminal proceedings as
an abuse of jurisdiction was rejected’ by all lower Courts.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons
‘declaring that Sec. 497 does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian
Constitution. The Supreme Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, admitted and
clubbed all the SLPs for final disposal.

4. Mr. Sukesh, aged about 22 years, a final year engineering student, is a native of
Kannipakkam district of Kundoor state, which is a part of the Indian Union. Mr. Sukesh
was suffering from severe headache from the last few weeks. Initially he went for
conventional free medication from which he did not get any relief. After few weeks when
the situation did not change he approached Kundoor Group of Hospitals Pvt. Ltd
(KGHPL) where he consulted specialist Dr.Vishnu. Dr. Vishnu asked him to conduct
several tests and on the reports of the tests Mr. Sukesh was advised to undergo
neurosurgery. Mr. Sukesh was further informed about the estimated expenditure of Rs.1,
70, 000/-(One Lakh and Seventy thousand only) along with the nature of problem and the
course of medical treatment. The authorities of KGHPL also brought to the notice of Mr.
Sukesh and his relatives about the procedure involved in the medical treatment.

Mr. Sukesh and his relatives later on consented for the treatment and submitted the
required amount to the authorities of KGHPL. After operation on 11.04.14, when Mr.
Sukesh regained consciousness, he expressed heavy discomfort and found that the lower
part of his body was paralysed. He and his relatives informed the authorities of KGHPL
about the same. They were assured that everything would be alright in a few days. But
when the situation did not improve in few days, Mr. Sukesh was admitted to a
Government hospital by his relatives. The doctors at the government hospital advised Mr.
Sukesh to get the full case sheet of medical treatment given at KGHPL along with the
diagnostic reports which were still with KGHPL. The authorities of KGHPL refused to
provide him the full case sheet of the medical treatment and told them that the operation
was done with the consent of the patient and his relatives after informing them about the
nature of operation. The operation was also conducted with due care and diligence. After
several tests conducted at Government hospital it was diagnosed that the paralysis of the
lower part of Sukesh’s body was due to the administration of excessive anesthesia during
the operation conducted in KGHPL. Mr. Sukesh was discharged from the Government
hospital after few weeks and was informed that he would not be normal in the near
future. He was confined to the wheel chair and his family was put to undue hardship,
mental agony and irreparable loss due to the medical negligence of the doctor of KGHPL.
Hence Sukesh decided to sue Dr. Vishnu and the authorities of KGHPL in National
Commission for seeking compensation of Rs. 1.5 crore and other reliefs where the
Commission gave him a relief of a very low amount by applying the Multiplier Method.
He also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with KGHPL
seeking copies of his medical records and the case sheet which was refused by the
authorities of the KGHPL stating that private hospitals are out of the purview of RTI Act,
 2005. An appeal was then filed to State Information Commission where it was declared
that KGHPL has no obligation to furnish the information to Mr. Sukesh.

Against this a writ petition was filed in HC of Kundoor where KGHPL was ordered to
furnish the information to Mr. Sukesh. Against this order of HC, KGHPL filed a Special
Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Meanwhile Mr. Sukesh also filed
an appeal against the order of National Commission in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India for just and adequate compensation. The matter is now before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India where both the matters have been clubbed together keeping in view the
inter-relation between the two matters.

5. On the night of 31st December, 2012, the Montecito Hotel & Casino owned by Ms
Shonli Gujral, on the ship ‘Aurora’ located on river Mandovi , hosted a high stakes poker
game on the Octavious floor. The chain of events that transpired that night are: i. Post
11p.m. of that night, the Octavious vault had been breached by four men dressed in fine
suits, though while making their exit the alarm got triggered. ii. Subsequently the four
men ran towards the deck to make an exit, and threw eight waterproof bags overboard
into a motorboat. Two of the men escaped by rappelling into a motorboat, while the other
two awaited their turn to rappel down. iii. Just as the remaining two were about to make
their escape, Mr. Michael Barbosa (Chief Security Officer) ordered them to stop. iv.
Thereafter Mr. Barbosa fired a warning shot in the air, however when they still did not
stop, he fired at one man’s knee and subdued him, they disobeyed the order and one of
them took a guest as hostage in order to escape; subsequently the accused, Maj. (Retd.)
J.S. Rana (Head of Operations, Security) had shot dead the other man. v. The police
reached the scene of crime at 12.15 a.m and Ms Shonali registered an F.I.R against the
accused. 2. Bhaskar Sanyal, on 4 th February, 2013 confessed to the crimes under Sec.
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and further provided incriminating evidence
 against the accused. The final report of the police was made on the complicity of the
accused on the 14th March, 2013. 3. On 16th May, 2013, an interim order was passed by
the Sessions Court stating that the charges under Sec.396/302 have been read out to the
accused and that the chargesheet has been served. The accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The matter is listed for final hearing before the Session’s Court, Panaji on
the 29th May 2013.

6. Manohar (hereinafter, ‘Mano’)became an orphan at the age of 10. Since then his uncle
Karan brought him up and financed his education including payment of his college fees.
Karan’s health started deteriorating considerably. He suffered from various ailments,
including high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and alcohol addiction. Mano was always
indebted to his uncle and for that matter he extremely respected his uncle and took care of
him when no one else did. Mano and Rahul were good friends. Mano always had his
uncle’s express authority to transfer money online from his bank account whenever he
required. It is suspected that even on the morning of 3rd August Karan had drank alcohol,
and wanted to go for work on the same day despite his condition, both of which Mano
advised him against. On the same day, Karan complained of chest pain. Mano sent his
cousin Raghav to fetch Angispan.Following the administration of Angispan, Karan
recovered fully for half an hour. Subsequently, Karan developed fits and seizure, and
collapsed. Mano and Raghav tried to revive him but failed. Following this, an F.I.R was
filed by Devika and Mano and Rahul were later arrested for the murder of Karan. In the
investigation under Section 173, the medicine Oxycontin, which is a painkiller, and
several half-empty bottles of alcohol were found. On forwarding of the police report to
the Magistrate’s Court, the court took cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions
Court of Durg.

7. Mrs. Rohini Sariman is a 40 year old entrepreneur and is the CEO of JM Media, a
popular national media house. She enjoys a good reputation as the head of her media
network and is very well known within the elite social spheres. In 2004, she married Mr.
Akash Sariman, an influential man in Indian music and film industry.
Even though Mrs. Rohini is an influential person, very little is known about her past prior
to her marriage to Mr. Akash. Mrs. Rohini hails from Patna in Bihar and is known to
have been highly ambitious since a very young age. She took her education and career
very seriously and claims this hard work to be the secret of her success. In one of her
interviews to a popular media fanfare magazine, she spoke about her previous marriage to
one Mr. Madan between 1998 and 2002. However, she declined to comment on the
nature of the marriage and also about the divorce. She has a daughter, Ms.Nidhi, from
that wedlock. In 2005, Ms. Nidhi was legally adopted by Mr. Akash and she also took his
surname. Mr. Akash has two sons, Virat and Vikraant from an earlier marriage to Mrs.
Ananya. In 2010, Mrs. Rohini introduced her husband to Ms. Soumya, who she claimed
to be her sister. Soumya started visiting Mrs. Rohini regularly and ultimately started
living with her at her Delhi residence. She was a law graduate and decided to do her post-
graduation in the same. She got enrolled at the Faculty of Law, Konoha University (New
Delhi) to pursue her Masters in Law. Mr. Akash's son, Virat was pursuing his MBA from
the same university. Over a period of time, Virat and Soumya developed into a
relationship and they decided to get married. By 2013, Mrs. Rohini's business ventures
suffered heavy losses. As a consequence, the company had to scale down its operations
which included selling off a sizable portion of the same to another company. Despite all
her efforts to contain business losses, by December 2013, she had to sell all her interests
in JM Media and relinquish her power in the board of directors. There were many
allegations levelled against her of financial misappropriation during this period. It was
also suspected that she used the bank accounts of her family members to hide her
fraudulent transactions. However, there is no evidence on record of such transactions. In
March 2014, Virat filed a missing person report at the NFC Police Station claiming that
Soumya has been missing for over 3 months. He stated that the last time he spoke to her
was in January 2014 and she sounded sad and confused about something. He also
mentioned that she kept apologizing to him and wanted to talk to him about some
important secret. He also mentioned that their last interaction was through an SMS which
was sent from an unknown number. The SMS stated that they could not meet again as she
was leaving for the United States to pursue higher studies.
 He also told the police that he had confronted Mrs. Rohini about Soumya. He said that
all Mrs. Rohini told him was that Soumya decided to end their relationship because she
wanted to focus on her career. And it was due to this reason she decided to go to USA
without informing him. However, she did mention that she was not able to get in touch
with her for the last one month. Subsequent to the FIR, one Mr. Arsh, who claimed to be
the son of Mrs. Rohini alleged that Mrs. Rohini along with Mr. Madan had murdered
Soumya. He claimed that the two did this because Mrs. Rohini did not want Soumya to
marry Virat. He claimed that she told about this to Mr. Madan, who agreed to help her if
she helped him with a huge financial problem he was facing. Mr. Arsh also claimed that
he was also born out of same relationship and that their father was a certain
Mr.Subramanium.The Police began the investigation immediately and called Mrs.
Rohini, her ex-husband Mr. Madan and her driver Mr. Atul for questioning. Mr Madan
and Mr. Atul confessed to having conspired with Mrs. Rohini and murdered Soumya.
However, Mrs. Rohini maintained her stance that Soumya was in the United States
pursuing higher education. The Police managed to track down the vehicle used in the
crime. It had changed many hands and was in regular use. A search of the car resulted in
the finding of a few blood stains on the backseat and on the door handle. The blood
samples were sent to a forensic lab for DNA testing and it was determined that the blood
was definitely that of Ms. Soumya. It was also noted that the amount of blood found was
not indicative of the fact that any major struggle or injury had taken place. Moreover,
during his confession Mr. Atul informed the police about the place where he disposed off
the body. He said that he disposed off the body in a forest. However, the search team
which went to retrieve the body along with Mr. Atul were not able to find anything there.
The team was not able to find the body parts even though they conducted an extensive
search within a 2 square km radius of the spot. However, they were able to retrieve some
clothes with blood stains on them. The clothes were sent to the same forensic lab for
DNA test. It was found that the blood on the clothes was of the same blood type as the
blood found in the car. However, due to technical difficulties the scientific expert was not
able to determine the same regarding the DNA. The report stated that it was not possible
to do a DNA comparison of the two samples because of the condition of the sample
found in the woods. On the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Police, charges were
 framed against Mrs. Rohini, Mr. Atul and Mr. Madan for the murder of Ms. Soumya. The
Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and committed the matter to the Sessions Court
for trial. On the basis of the confessions of the co-accused and statements made by other
persons, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused to life Imprisonment.
Mrs. Rohini and the other accused filed an appeal against the order of the Sessions Court
before the High Court wherein she contended that Mr. Madan was doing this to take out
personal vengeance and Mr. Atul was helping him for money. Also, that the trial court
lacked additional evidence and it was solely on the basis of the statements that she was
convicted. However, the High Court found no merit in the appeals and accordingly
upheld the trial court‟s order. Moreover, the state also filed an appeal against the decision
of the trial court regarding the “nature and quantum of punishment”. The State argued
that the case was a rarest of rare case and the accused should have been sentenced to
death. The court found merit in the State‟s appeal and declared that the nature of the
actions of the accused and other circumstances required the case to be treated as a „rarest
of rare case‟. The High Court therefore converted the “life imprisonment” given by the
trial court to “death sentence”. Aggrieved by the judgement delivered by the High Court,
Mrs. Rohini has now approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution [S.L.P. No. 5 of 2016] for relief in this matter.

8. Ms Shalini, the victim aged 20 years , was a nursing student . She was kidnapped by
Bhawarlal, Ram, Shankar, and Thribhuvan (two of them were watchmen at her college
hostel, and the others were students) and at the point of knife was brutally raped. After
the offence the victim was thrown naked and unconscious over the backside of the
boundary wall of the hostel. An FIR was filed and case was lodged U/S 376(2)(g) and
363 of IPC aganist the four accused.The sessions judge convicted the accused as follows
 Bhawar Lal , the night watchman – Rigorous imprisonment for life.
 Thribhuvan – Declared a minor.
 Ram, student - Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
 Shankar, student – Simple imprisonment for 7 years.
 Damages for the victim – Rs. 10 lacs.
 Aggrieved by the order, the complainant filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court
seeking for the reduction in the quantum of punishment. Decide.

9. On the First day of March 2015, a young girl, aged about nineteen (19) years
wasreturning from her tuition classes was forcibly stopped by a group of five (5) persons.

The persons took advantage of the fact that the road was deserted at that point of time,and
forcibly dragged the girl to the barn. The girl was brutally assaulted sexually, and

thereafter was bathed in country liquor and set ablaze and succumbed to her woundson March
3rd, 2015. All five (5) persons were apprehended in connection with thecrime. One of them,
identified for the purpose of the present case as Rana, was below

eighteen (18) years of age on the date of commission of the crime, and is still aJuvenile as per the
meaning given in Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The learned trial court has sentenced all the
accused to death under Section 376D and

302 of Indican Penal Code. Their appeal against the aforesaid conviction and the sentence
imposed has since been dismissed and the High Court of Bangla has confirmed the death
penalty.Peoples‟ Conscience (hereafter referred as “the group” or the petitioners, both being

referred to the same person/group of persons) claimed that, on a proper interpretation of the Act,
the juvenile was not entitled to the benefits under the Act but was liable to

be tried under the penal law of the land in a regular criminal court along with the other
accused.They instituted a writ proceeding before the Hon‟ble High Court of Bangla, which

was registered as Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 124 of 2015, seeking the following reliefs:-

a) Laying down an authoritative interpretation of Sections 2(I) and 2(k) of the Act that the
criterion of eighteen (18) years set out therein does not comprehend cases

grave offences in general and of heinous crimes against women in particular that shake the root
of humanity.

b) That the definition of offences under Section 2(p) of the Act be categorised as per
grievousness of the crime committed and the threat of public safety and order.
c) That Section 28 of the Act be interpreted in terms of its definition, i.e., alternative punishment
and serious offences having a minimum punishment of seven years

imprisonment and above be brought outside its purview and the same should be tried by an
ordinary criminal court.

THE 1ST MRINALINI DEVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

d) Direction striking down as unconstitutional and void the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 (Act No. 56 of 2000) to the extent it puts a blanket ban on the power of
the criminal courts to try a Juvenile offender for offences committed under the Indican Penal
Code,1860; and

e) Incorporating the International concept of age of criminal responsibility and diluting the
blanket immunity provided to the juvenile offender on the basis of age along with the Direction
that the Respondent be tried forthwith by the competent

criminal court.

The group at the outset, clarified that they are neither challenging the provisions of Section 2(k)
and 2(l) of the Act nor is he invoking the jurisdiction of the Court to

strike down any other provision of the Act or for interference of the Court to reduce the
minimum age of Juveniles fixed under the Act as eighteen (18) years. The group has contended
is that having regard to the object behind the enactment, the

Act has to be read down to understand that the true test of “juvenility” is not in the age but in the
level of mental maturity of the offender..

The provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Indican Penal Code have been placed to contend that
while a child below seven (7) cannot be held to be criminally liable, the

criminality of those between seven (7) and twelve (12) years has to be judged by the level of
their mental maturity.The provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (Beijing Rules); the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, 1990 (CRC) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of
their Liberty, 1990 (Havana Rules), SCALE 1 International Commitments entered into by Indica
obliges it to set up a particular framework to deal with Juvenile offenders and such obligations
can be more comprehensively met. The group has also suggested that Section 28 of the Act be
read together with Section 15 to enable the alternatively higher punishment under other
State/Centralenactments. Based on these facts the case rests in the Hon‟ble High Court of
Bangla.