TEAM CODE: T-25

9th INTRA-COLLGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF OKLHOMA

. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams

IN THE MATTER OF

MS. VANESSA J. ADAMS (PETITIONER)

V.

HEERA AND OTHERS

(RESPONDENTS)

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF ORIENT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. S.L.P./________/2020

MEMORANDUM FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 1|Page

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 2|Page
MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................X

ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................XII

BODY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................................1

ISSUE I. THAT THE CURRENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE......................1

ISSUE II. THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE U/S. 306 R/W §. 107 OF
THE OPC. ..........................................................................................................................1

A. ABETMENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTS OF THE

RESPONDENTS AND SUICIDE.............................................................................................2

B. INSTIGATION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS RESULTS IN ABETMENT..............3

1. Active role played by Respondents which resulted in suicide amounts to

instigation......................................................................................................................3

2. Instigation can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.............
.............................................................................................................................4

ISSUE III. THAT THE SUICIDE NOTE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE
EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION......................................................................................4

A. DYING DECLARATION UNDER §. 32 OF THE IEA INCLUDE SUICIDE NOTES.........5

B. A DYING DECLARATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE..................5

C. A DYING DECLARATION CAN BE THE SOLE EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION............6

1. Dying declarations are admissible without any corroborative evidence............6

2. Dying declaration along with supportive facts and circumstances can form the
basis for conviction........................................................................................................7

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 III | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS

ISSUE IV. THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY U/S. 120B R/W §. 306...............................................................................7

A. CONSPIRACY CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDUCT OF

THE RESPONDENTS............................................................................................................8

B. CIRCUMSTANCES FORMING A CHAIN OF EVENT REFLECT CONSPIRACY.............8

C. IN ARGUENDO, RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE U/S. 34 R/W §. 306 OF THE OPC.....9

1. A new charge u/s. 34 r/w §. 306 of the OPC can be included along with existing
charges...........................................................................................................................9

2. Prior planning is sufficient to prove common intention....................................10

ISSUE V. THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION.....10

A. PHILLIP COOPER HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE COMPLAINT FOR

DEFAMATION....................................................................................................................10

B. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT..............11

1. Right to Reputation of dauphin cooper is violated............................................11

2. Fundamental Rights have to be exercised in balance........................................12

3. Freedom of speech and expression can be restricted to protect reputation......12

ISSUE VI. THAT RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CYBER BULLYING......13

ISSUE VII. THAT HEERA AND HIS FRIENDS ARE LIABLE U/S. 66C OF THE
IT ACT FOR IDENTITY THEFT...................................................................................14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................XIII

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 IV | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& and
§. section
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
EHRR European Human Right Report
ER European Reporter
G.A. General Assembly
Hon’ble Honourable
Id Ibidem
IEA Indian Evidence Act
Ors. Others
OPC Orient Penal Code
PC Privy Council
r/w Read with
SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
u/s. Under section
v. Versus
Rs. Rupee

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 V|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Acharya Maharajshri v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 11. 12

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460. 4
Atbir v. Government Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1. 6
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip kumar and Ors., (1983) 1 SCC 11
124.
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298. 1
Central Bureau of Investigation v. VC Shukla, AIR 1998 SC 1406. 8
Chairman & Managing Director v. Goparaju Sri PrabhakaraHariBabu, (2008) 5 5
SCC 468.
ChamanLal v. State of Punjab, (2009) 11 SCC 721. 8
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State of Delhi, (2009) 16 SCC 605. 4
Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 12 SCC 336. 8
DTC v. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Supp 1 SCC 600. 12
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327. 3
Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 460. 9
Goudappa v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 675. 10
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74. 2
Gurjit singh v. State of Punjab, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1516. 3
Haryana State Industrial Corporation. v. Cork Manufacturing Company, (2007) 8 1
SCC 359.
Haryana State Industrial Corporation. V. Cork Manufacturing Company, (2007) 8 1
SCC 359.
HemchandJha v. State of Bihar, (2008) 11 SCC 303. 10
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union Of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. 14
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324. 6
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569. 2
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), 1988 (3) SCC 609. 9
Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and Ors., (1989) 1 SCC 494. 11
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52. 3
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3649. 8
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 684. 6
Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 514. 6
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710. 5
M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552 10
MallellaShyamsunder v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 486. 6
Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC 112. 5
MehiboobsabAbbasabiNadaf v. State of Karnataka (2007) 13 SCC 112. 6
Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 3534. 8
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174. 10
Munnu Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199. 6
Patel Hiralal Jottaram v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2944. 7
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241. 1
Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734. 3, 4

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 VI | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

PV Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3587. 6

R Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737. 8
Rajiv Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3772. 8
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1. 12
Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641. 8
Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211. 7
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618. 3
RatanGond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1950 SC 18. 5
Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 161. 7
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 600 11
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603. 12
Sakal papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India, AIR 1962 SC 305. 12
SC Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020. 9
Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260. 9
Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti, AIR 2009 SC 923. 3
SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190. 3
State of Haryana v. Mange Ram, (2003) 1 SCC 637. 5
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998. 1
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 221. 11
Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347. 7
Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591. 12
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 510. 11
VishwanathAgrawal v. Saral Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288. 12
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378. 2
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540. 9
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991. 8
STATUTES

Karako v. Hungary, (2011) 52 EHRR 36. 12

Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118. 10
Plato Films Ltd. v. Speidel, (1961) 1 All ER 876. 11
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (2001) 2 AC 127. 11
Rosenblatt v. Baer, (1966) 383 US 75. 11
OTHER AUTHORITIES

Cambridge Dictionary last accessed on 9, August, 2020, 1

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/planning. 0
Cambridge Dictionary, last accessed on 9, August, 2020, 1
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bully. 3
Cambridge Dictionory, last accessed on 9, August, 2020, 2
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conduce.
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Citizen Manual for National Cybercrime Reporting Portal, 1
last accessed on 24 July, 2020, https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/UploadMedia/MHA- 3
CitizenManualReportOtherCyberCrime-v10.pdf.
Ministry Of Home Affairs, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, last accessed on 21 1
July, 2020, https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/CrimeCatDes.aspx. 3
National Center for Biotechnology Information, Preventing Bullying, last accessed on 1

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 VII | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

24 July, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390414/. 3

Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, last accessed on 27, July, 2020, 1
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/demean#:~:te 2
xt=1demean%20yourself%20to%20do,Behavior%20like%20this%20demeans
%20politics.
RULES

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 2

Punishment, Article 1, (June 26, 1987).
General Assembly 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 12, 1
(Dec. 10, 1948). 1
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 17, (December 16, 1966). 1
2
TREATISES

Deepak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1993) SCC OnLine Madhya Pradesh 9. 5

Emperor v. Ganesh Damodar, (1907) SCC OnLine Bombay 69. 3
Mani v. Inspector of Police, (2014) 3 MLJ CRIMINAL 18. 4
Miss Rashika v. The State of Goa. (2014) SCC OnLine Bombay 40. 5
P Bikshapathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) SCC OnLine Andhra Pradesh 317. 5
Rachana Ravindra Jain v. State of Gujarat, (2019) SCC OnLine Gujarat 744. 5
Raghu Nath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi, (2006) SCC OnLine Delhi 221. 10
Rajib Neog v. State of Assam, (2012) SCC OnLine Guwahati 382. 3
Sant Gopal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1993) SCC OnLine Allahabad 215. 5
REGULATIONS

185th Law Commission Report, March 2003. 6

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 9,

Constitution Of India, 1950 1
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 25, (Dec. 10, 11
1948)
Indian Evidence Act, 1908, 5
Information Technology Act, 2000 14

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 VIII | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The PETITIONER herein is Mr. Phillip Cooper. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Orient, 1950, this Hon’ble Court has been vested, in its discretion, to 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. In this case, the petitioner
has preferred an appeal against the impugned orders of the Hon’ble SUPREME Court.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 IX | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
FACTS OF THE CASE:- 1. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams, D/o Dr. Wendell Pierce, aged about 23
years, was living in the beautiful city of Bricktown of Oklahoma which is famous for
heterosexual and homosexual sculptures and paintings. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams is a trans-
sexual (declared as male at time of birth but look like a female in physical appearance) of and
belongs to a middle class family where she developed her interest in the field of animation.

2. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams was hardworking and bright student in her childhood. Later, she
joined a famous college of a Bricktown for animation and scored a highest grade in the city
college. She was placed in a company through college placement cell but soon after joining it
she resign from there because of sexual comments passed by the office colleague(s) against
her trans-sexual character.

3. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams was so dedicated towards her profession that she won't stop herself
in a small city like Bricktown due to sexual comment(s) passed against her transsexual
character. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams moved to the Midwest City which is famous for the
movement of "Sappho for Equality" in the interest of trans-sexual and LGBT rights of their
gender(s).

4. In the Midwest City, Ms. Vanessa J. Adams joined the top company of a city namely
Pearson softech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as "aforesaid company") in the bailiwick of
animation as junior animator. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams obtained instant success in the art of
animation due to her hard work and dedication. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams became the iconic for
trans-sexual and LGBT community in the Midwest City. The company and senior official
decided to promote the Ms. Vanessa J. Adams as a senior advisor for the department of
animation which directly coordinate and consult with the senior official(s) namely Mr. John
Bennett and Rick Haffman.

5. Mr. John Bennett and Mr. Rick Haffman are working as a director and chief manager in
the aforesaid company. In the air of Midwest City, John Bennett and Rick Haffman were
always remained in sexual controversies with their female employees, investors and other
high profile girls (inclusive married and unmarried). But due to political and financial power

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 X|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS

nobody has dare to step out and filed a complaint against Mr. John Bennett and Rick
Haffman. Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman are living as a big business giant in the
Midwest City with clean reputation and pretended themselves as a pure soul for the business
fraternities which do lots for their employees and investors. Many newspaper and magazine
of the Midwest City also tag them as sex player (addicted to sex without considering the
genders) due to their controversies.

6. Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman throw a party for Ms. Vanessa J. Adams success to
show company gratitude towards her loyalty and hard work. In the mid of the party, Ms.
Vanessa J. Adams was called by Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman in their personal suites
of the hotel where party was hosted by Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman for discussing
the company plans for future expansion in the bailiwick of the animation. During the
meeting, Mr. Rick Haffman offer the wine to Ms. Venessa J. Adams and try to touch her
breast while sitting near her. Ms. Venessa J. Adams angrily opposed the act of Mr. Rick and
shouted on him for his inappropriate act towards her. Seeing, the situation Mr. John tried to
handle it and later start convincing Ms. Venessa J. Adams that as she is trans-sexual so
nobody will feel offended form the anything happen in a suites and also tried to convince her
that it's just a matter of pleasure and satisfaction between employer(s) and employee(s). Ms.
Venessa J. Adams understand the intention(s) of Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman that
they want to take undue advantage of her transsexual character by giving promotion and other
perks but she refused them and start moving out from the suites. Suddenly, Mr. Rick holds
her from the back and takes her to the bedroom where both Mr. John Bennett and Rick
Haffman raped her.
7. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams anyhow managed herself and escapes from them and run out from
the hotel. Ms. Vanessa J. Adams decided to file a complaint against Mr. John Bennett and
Rick Haffman about their brutal act towards her and directly went to police station. The
police official(s) immediately took an action against Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman on
the complaint filed by Ms. Vanessa J. Adams and send her for medical examination in the
nearest hospital with female constable. After the medical examination concluded it was found
that she was subjected to a sexual intercourse. Soon, Mr. John Bennett and Rick Haffman
were arrested and brought to trial. They were charged under Section 377 of the Oklahoma
Penal Code, 1860.
8. The Ld. trial court after hearing the final argument(s) and examined all the witness(es) &
evidence(s) from both the parties, the Ld. trial court convicted the accused person(s) under

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 XI | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER STATEMENT OF FACTS

Section 377 of the Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860 and sentence them for a imprisonment of 7
years.
9. The accused person(s) filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Midwest City
against the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Ld. trial Court against the
accused person(s). After long hearing in the matter the Hon'ble High Court of Midwest City
acquitted the accused person(s) from all the charges on the ground of lack of evidence(s)

10. The State of Midwest City filed a Special Leave Petition on 02.03.2020 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Oklahoma against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2019
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Midwest City against the petitioner. Therefore, the
present matter will be listed before the bench for admission and final disposal.

PETITION IN SUPREME COURT

Aggrieved by the judgment of lower courts, Ms. Vanessa J. Adams moved to Supreme Court
to seek justice.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 XII | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ISSUES RAISED

ISSUES RAISED

_______________ [ISSUE I] _______________

Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable in the eye of law

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Oklahoma?

_______________ [ISSUE II] ______________

Whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in not framing the
charges under Section 354 and 376D of the Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860
against the accused person(s) and other offences in light of Androgynous trans-
sexual and LGBT rights?
_______________ [ISSUE III] _______________

Whether the impugned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Oklahoma

was reasonable and justified while acquitting the accused person(s)
under Section 377 of the Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860?
_______________ [ISSUE IV] _______________

Whether the provision(s) related to sexual offences in the Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860 fails
to protect the dignity and modesty of trans-sexual and LGBT community?

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 XIII | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE- I]: WHETHER THE CURRENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

The current petition in the form of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is maintainable.

[ISSUE- II]: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE u/s. 306 r/w §. 107 OF THE OPC?

The RESPONDENTS are liable u/s. 306 r/w §. 107 as instigation and a nexus between the act of
the RESPONDENTS and the suicide can be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances of
the case which amounts to abetment.

[ISSUE- III]: WHETHER THE SUICIDE NOTE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE EVIDENCE
FOR CONVICTION?

The suicide note can be considered as the sole evidence for conviction as it is in the form of
dying declaration and a dying declaration is admissible as sole evidence for conviction
without any corroboration.

[ISSUE- IV]: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY u/s.
120B r/w §.306?

The RESPONDENTS are liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy as circumstances of the
case reflects the existence of a common intention to commit the offence of Abetment.

[ISSUE- V]: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATION OF THE

DECEASED?

The RESPONDENTS are liable for the offence of defamation as they have violated Right to
Reputation of the deceased which is an intrinsic part of Article 21 i.e. Right to Life.

[ISSUE- VI]: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CYBER BULLYING?

The RESPONDENTS with the help of electronic devices continuously bullied the deceased over
the internet and hence liable for the offence of cyber bullying.

[ISSUE- VII]: WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CYBER BULLYING?

Heera and his Friends used the pictures of Dauphin and uploaded on the social media and
hence they are liable for the offence of Identity Theft u/s. 66C of the IT Act.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 XIV | P a g e

 MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I. THAT THE CURRENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE.

¶ 1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court in the territory of India. 1 It does so only when substantial and grave
injustice has been done, and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to
warrant a review of the decision appealed against, or there has been a departure from legal
procedure such as vitiates the whole trial.2

¶ 2. Article 136 is the residuary power of Supreme Court to do justice where the court is
satisfied that there is injustice.3 The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the Supreme
Court are corrective one and not a restrictive.4 It is well settled that illegality must not be
allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the Supreme Court to interfere with the same would
amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated, therefore a duty is enjoined upon the
Supreme Court to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments.5

¶ 3. In the present case, the lower courts had not properly appreciated suicide note as an
evidence and wrongly interpreted the facts of the case. Further, the lower courts had given the
judgment without even considering §. 66C of the IT Act.6 Hence, the impugned judgment is
grave injustice to the deceased and the judgment is illegal as it is based upon the wrong
application of laws.

¶ 4. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that it is submitted that the current petition before the Supreme Court of Orient is
maintainable.

ISSUE II. THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE u/s. 306 r/w §. 107 OF THE OPC.

¶ 5. §. 306 of the OPC states that whoever abets the commission of a suicide shall be
punished with imprisonment and fine.7 It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Neelima

1
Constitution Of India, 1950, Article 136.
2
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998.
3
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298.
4
Haryana State Industrial Corporation. v. Cork Manufacturing Company, (2007) 8 SCC 359.
5
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241.
6
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
7
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 306.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 1|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Riddle, Heera Bisht, Peter Williams and Daniel Thomas (Hereinafter “RESPONDENTS”) are
liable u/s. 306 r/w §. 107 of the OPC as first, abetment can be inferred from the nexus
between the acts of the RESPONDENTS and suicide [A.]; second, instigation on the part of
accused results in abetment [B.].

A. ABETMENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTS OF THE

RESPONDENTS AND SUICIDE.

¶ 6. ‘Abet’ is defined as to conduce, to promote, to induce, to advance, to procure, to

encourage or to set another on to commit. 8 ‘Conduce’ mean to help in making a particular
situation happen or help in producing a particular result.9 To constitute abetment, there should
be a nexus between the act of the accused and the suicide.10

¶ 7. Further, it is necessary to prove that the person who has abetted the offence was
connected with some criminal steps.11 Ministry of Home Affairs defines cyber bullying as
harassment through electronic medium and consider it as a crime. 12 Furthermore, torture
means any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted upon a person punishing him for an act he has committed.13

¶ 8. In the present case, Dauphin Cooper and Phillip Cooper received abusive and demeaning
comments on social media from the RESPONDENTS. This was followed by further acts of
cyber bullying including prank calls along with uploading offensive and annoying pictures of
Dauphin.14 Further, Neelima with the help of fake account suggested Dauphin to harass
herself, and the screenshot shared by Dauphin regarding this incident was also deliberately
misinterpreted by Peter in order to create a public opinion about Dauphin.15

¶ 9. Furthermore, false #MeToo allegations and a complaint by Neelima extended the chain
of event which can be termed as transactions which resulted in humiliation and degradation
of the social image of Dauphin.16 This humiliation led to the result of commission of suicide
by Dauphin. These acts also indicate that Dauphin was tortured mentally via the cyber

8
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
9
Cambridge Dictionory, last accessed on 9, August, 2020,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conduce.
10
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74.
11
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378.
12
Ministry Of Home Affairs, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, last accessed on 21 July, 2020,
https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/CrimeCatDes.aspx.
13
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1,
(June 26, 1987).
14
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
15
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
16
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 2|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

bullying done by the RESPONDENTS. This mental torture and cyber bullying are the criminal
act directly related to Dauphin’s act of committing suicide. Therefore, these acts form a
proximate link and nexus with the suicide of Dauphin.

B. INSTIGATION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS RESULTS IN ABETMENT.

¶ 10. A person abets the doing of a thing that instigates any person, through a mental
process,17 to do that thing.18 For establishing abetment of suicide it is necessary to prove that
the accused has instigated the person to commit suicide.19

¶ 11. It is submitted that there was instigation on the part of RESPONDENTS as first, active
role played by RESPONDENTS which resulted in suicide amounts to instigation [1.]; second,
instigation can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case [2.].

1. Active role played by RESPONDENTS which resulted in suicide amounts to

instigation.

¶ 12. Instigation is to urge forward, provoke or incite the doing of an act. 20 The instigation
must amount to provoking, inciting or urging a person to do a thing. It has to be established
that the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or conduct until
the deceased reacted or was provoked to commit suicide. 21 Therefore, it must be established
that the accused had done something which amounted to instigation.22

¶ 13. Moreover, a person is said to instigate another when he actively stimulates other by
any means direct or indirect.23 Direct involvement by the accused in instigation is necessary.24
It also requires an active act which led the deceased to commit suicide and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into a position that he committed suicide.25

¶ 14. In the present case, online bullying, as established above, in the form of abusive
comments, prank calls, uploading annoying pictures clearly indicates that the RESPONDENTS
have the intention to irritate and annoy Dauphin. 26 Moreover, they continued cyber bullying
through the fake account and false #MeToo allegations. Further, the FIR lodged against him
17
Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti, AIR 2009 SC 923.
18
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 107.
19
Gurjit singh v. State of Punjab, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1516.
20
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.
21
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52.
Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734.
22
Rajib Neog v. State of Assam, (2012) SCC OnLine Guwahati 382.
23
Emperor v. Ganesh Damodar, (1907) SCC OnLine Bombay 69.
24
SS Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190.
25
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 327.
26
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 3|Page

 MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

was the major cause of suicide which makes it evident that the RESPONDENTS had the clear
intention of forcing Dauphin in a particular direction. 27 Therefore, these incidents reflect
active and direct participation by RESPONDENTS in irritating and annoying the deceased and
thus, instigating Dauphin to commit suicide.

2. Instigation can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶ 15. When the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with only option to commit suicide, 28 as there may
not be direct evidence which may have direct nexus to suicide.29 If the accused played a role
or an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem of the victim, which eventually draws the
victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide.30

¶ 16. Further, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be

determined whether circumstances had been such which had created the situation that a
person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide.31

¶ 17. In the present case, social image of the deceased was deliberately degraded by the
constant online bullying by the RESPONDENTS. Moreover, Dauphin was in no position to
respond in a legal manner and even his attempt to file a complaint failed due to the particulars
of law.32 Therefore, it was only the conduct of RESPONDENTS which forced him to commit
suicide.

¶ 18. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that RESPONDENTS are liable for abetment of suicide u/s. 306 r/w §. 107 of the
OPC for the charge of abetment of suicide.

ISSUE III. THE SUICIDE NOTE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE EVIDENCE FOR
CONVICTION.

¶ 19. A suicide note can act as the sole evidence for a conviction and there exists a dying
declaration left by Dauphin in evidence.33 It is submitted that suicide note fulfills the
requirement of the sole evidence required for conviction as first, dying declaration under §.
32 of the India Evidence Act (hereinafter IEA) include suicide notes [A.]; second, a dying
27
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
28
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State of Delhi, (2009) 16 SCC 605.
29
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460.
30
Mani v. Inspector of Police, (2014) 3 MLJ Criminal 18.
31
Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734.
32
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
33
Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 13 SCC 112.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 4|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

declaration is admissible in the form of evidence [B.]; third, a dying declaration can be the
sole evidence for conviction [C.].

A. DYING DECLARATION UNDER §. 32 OF THE IEA INCLUDE SUICIDE NOTES.

¶ 20. Statement, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is now dead is
dying declaration.34 Facts are relevant when they are related to the cause of death, 35 or as to
any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death.36

¶ 21. Further, to act as a declaration, suicide note should be related to the cause or the
circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death, 37 and death includes suicidal death.38
Suicide note can be considered as dying declaration, 39 if the decedent wrote the suicide note 40
believing that he was left with no other alternative except suicide.41

¶ 22. In the present case, the statement is made by a dead person about the cause &
circumstances of his death and death include suicidal death under the ambit of §. 32 of the
IEA.42 Further, as already established, the RESPONDENTS had created such circumstances due
to which Dauphin believed that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
Therefore, the statements made by Dauphin are a part of dying declaration and the same can
be considered under the ambit of §. 32 of the IEA.

C. A DYING DECLARATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE.

¶ 23. Any information lodged by a person who died subsequently, relating to the cause of
his death, is admissible in evidence. 43 The statement must be confidence bearing, truthful 44
and credible;45 due to the maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means a
person about to die would not give false statement about his cause of death.46

¶ 24. In the present case, Dauphin committed suicide due to the circumstances created by
the RESPONDENTS. Before dying, he told his brother that he wants to end his life as he cannot

34
Sant Gopal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1993) SCC OnLine Allahabad 215.
35
Indian Evidence Act, 1908, §. 32 (1).
36
State of Haryana v. Mange Ram, (2003) 1 SCC 637.
37
P Bikshapathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) SCC OnLine Andhra Pradesh 317.
38
Deepak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1993) SCC OnLine Madhya Pradesh 9.
39
RatanGond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1950 SC 18.
40
Rachana Ravindra Jain v. State of Gujarat, (2019) SCC OnLine Gujarat 744.
41
Miss Rashika v. The State of Goa. (2014) SCC OnLine Bombay 40.
42
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.
43
Emperor v. Mohammad Shaikh, (1942) 2 Calcutta 144.
44
Chairman & Managing Director v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 468.
45
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710.
46
PV Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3587.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 5|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

bear cyber bullying and fake allegations.47 Further, he left a suicide note stating that his life
turned into hell due to consistent bullying from Heera and his friends along with Neelima’s
false accusation against him was the final nail in his coffin which made him feels that he had
no option other than ending his life.48 Therefore, this dying declaration is admissible as
evidence in any court.

D. A DYING DECLARATION CAN BE THE SOLE EVIDENCE FOR CONVICTION.

¶ 25. Conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration.49 It is submitted that a
dying declaration can be the sole evidence for conviction as first, dying declaration is
admissible without any corroborative evidence [1.]; second, dying declaration along with
supportive facts and circumstances can form the basis for conviction [2.].

1. Dying declarations are admissible without any corroborative evidence.

¶ 26. A true and reliable dying declaration is admissible ipso facto as evidence.50 It must
not be made under any torture 51 or duress52 and must inspires the full confidence of the
court.53 No corroborative evidence is required.54

¶ 27. Corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.55 The rule of law is to accept the dying
declaration as long as there exists no infirmity or inconsistency that might create a serious
doubt,56 as the situation of a man on deathbed is considered to be solemn and serene, 57 and
this is the reason to accept the veracity of his statement.58

¶ 28. In the present case, Dauphin wrote the suicide note soon after getting bail and after
calling his brother. There is nothing prudent to suggest that the content of the suicide note is
the result of any duress or torture as he took no time after the bail and committed suicide. 59
Further, the content of the suicide note is reflected by the facts itself so there is no chance of
any infirmity which questions the reliability of the suicide note. Therefore, a suicide note
should be admitted without any corroborative evidence.

47
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
48
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.
49
185th Law Commission Report, March 2003.
50
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 684.
51
MallellaShyamsunder v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 486.
52
Atbir v. Government Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1.
53
Id 45.
54
Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 514.
55
Munnu Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2199.
56
MehiboobsabAbbasabiNadaf v. State of Karnataka (2007) 13 SCC 112.
57
Id 45.
58
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324.
59
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 6|Page

 MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. Dying declaration along with supportive facts and circumstances can

form the basis for conviction.

¶ 29. The rule of law is to consider all the statements in declaration related to any facts
and circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death.60 A person can be convicted
on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased depending upon the facts and circumstances
of the case.61 Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence62 and
transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant.63

¶ 30. In the present case, the suicide note suggests that the RESPONDENTS created such
circumstances because of which the deceased was forced to commit suicide.64 The
circumstances which Dauphin referred to are the series of online bullying, prank calls,
demeaning comments, uploading objectionable pictures.65 Further, social image of Dauphin
was tarnished66 through the false #MeToo allegation and lodging of an FIR.67

¶ 31. Dauphin committed suicide just after getting bail which highlights that the final
blow for his commission suicide was false allegation and filing of fake case. These
circumstance forms a proximate link which resulted in the suicide of Dauphin as they created
mental torture, humiliation, character assassination, defamation and left him with no other
option. Therefore, dying declaration, which includes suicide notes, is admissible as the sole
evidence required for a conviction in the case of abetment of suicide under §. 306 of OPC.

ISSUE IV. THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY u/s. 120B
r/w §. 306 OF THE OPC.

¶ 32. When two or more persons agree to do an illegal act, 68 such an agreement is referred
as criminal conspiracy69 and shall be punished in a manner as if they had abetted such
offence.70

¶ 33. It is submitted that the RESPONDENTS are liable for the offence of criminal
conspiracy u/s. 120B r/w §. 306 as first, conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances
60
Patel Hiralal Jottaram v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2944.
61
Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211.
62
Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 161.
63
Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347.
64
Moot Proposition, ¶ 5.
65
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
66
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
67
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
68
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 120A.
69
Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 3534.
70
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 120B.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 7|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

and conduct of the RESPONDENTS [A.]; second, circumstances forming a chain of event
reflect conspiracy [B.]; third, In Arguendo, there lies liability of RESPONDENTS u/s. 34 r/w §.
306 [C.].

A. CONSPIRACY CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDUCT OF

THE RESPONDENTS.

¶ 34. The prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to
do the illegal act.71 It is enough that two or more persons were actually concerned in the
criminal conspiracy.72 Existence of the conspiracy73 can be inferred from the circumstantial, 74
conduct,75 knowledge76 and by necessary implication.77

¶ 35. In the present case, RESPONDENTS deliberately uploaded abusive and demeaning
comments, pictures and caricatures on social media.78 Simultaneously, Neelima helped Heera
and his friends because she is Heera’s girlfriend and live-in partner and Peter’s act of
misinterpretation of the screenshot and allegation framed by Neelima could not have
happened separately.79

¶ 36. There exists no expressed agreement in knowledge but the circumstances and
conduct of the RESPONDENTS implies a consensus in their acts. Therefore, conspiracy in the
present case can be inferred.

E. CIRCUMSTANCES FORMING A CHAIN OF EVENT REFLECT CONSPIRACY.

¶ 37. The meeting of minds for doing an illegal act 80 is sine qua non of the criminal
conspiracy.81 The cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account
in determining the conspiracy.82 The incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events
from which guilt of the accused could be drawn.83 Further, Mere proof of an agreement
between the accused for commission of a crime alone is enough for conviction under §.

71
R Venkatakrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737.
72
Central Bureau of Investigation v. VC Shukla, AIR 1998 SC 1406.
73
Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641.
74
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3649.
75
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991.
76
Rajiv Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3772.
77
Mohammad Usman Mohammad HussainManiyar v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 443.
78
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
79
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.
80
Damodar v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 12 SCC 336.
81
ChamanLal v. State of Punjab, (2009) 11 SCC 721.
82
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609.
83
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 8|Page

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

120B.84

¶ 38. In the present case, due to online commenting and prank calls Dauphin tried to file a
complaint which further leads to rigorous cyber bulling. 85 Later, to help her boyfriend,
Neelima defamed Dauphin with false allegations which would never been that strong if the
social image of Dauphin was not degraded by misinterpretation by Peter. Moreover, there
was a clear influence of Heera in framing charges against Dauphin. 86 Therefore, a chain of
event is present which can be inferred from the circumstances which resulted in the suicide of
Dauphin and a conspiracy can be deduced.

¶ 39. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that the RESPONDENTS are liable u/s. 120B r/w §. 306.

F. IN ARGUENDO, RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE U/S. 34 R/W §. 306 OF THE OPC.

¶ 40. It is submitted that the RESPONDENTS are liable u/s 34 r/w §. 306 of the OPC as first,
a new charge u/s. 34 r/w §. 306 of the OPC can be included along with existing charges [1.];
second, prior planning is sufficient to prove common intention [2.].

1. A new charge u/s. 34 r/w §. 306 of the OPC can be included along with
existing charges.

¶ 41. A new charge can be added at any time before judgment is pronounced, if
proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely to prejudice the accused in his defense. 87
No distinction exists between a charge under a particular section and a charge under that
section r/w §. 34.88

¶ 42. In the present case, a charge u/s. 34 r/w §. 306 can be included as the judgment is
yet to be pronounced and including it will not create any difference in the existing framed
charges.

4. Prior planning is sufficient to prove common intention.

¶ 43. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance 89 of the common
intention of all,90 each of such persons is liable for that act.91 Common intention implies a pre-
84
SC Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2020.
85
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.
86
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
87
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §. 216.
88
Garib Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 460.
89
Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260.
90
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118.
91
Goudappa v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 675.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 9|Page

 MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

arranged plan and act pursuant to the plan92 to commit the offence.93 Moreover, planning is
the process of arranging activities or events in an organized. 94 Circumstances as a whole must
be taken into consideration to conclude whether the accused had a common intention 95 to
commit an offence or not.96

¶ 44. In the present case, as established above, there is a link in the acts of the
RESPONDENTS as all the events of commenting, uploading pictures & caricatures, false
allegations are arranged and organized in order to annoy, defame and instigate Dauphin.
Therefore, the said acts are done in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan.

¶ 45. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that it is submitted that common intention can be inferred and the RESPONDENTS
are liable for the same u/s. 34 r/w §. 306 of the OPC.

ISSUE V. THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION.

¶ 46. Defamatory statement is one which has a tendency; which tends, to injure the
reputation of the person in the mind of right thinking people. 97 It is submitted that
RESPONDENTS are liable for the defamation as first, Phillip Cooper has the locus standi to file
the complaint for defamation [A.]; second, freedom of speech and expression is not an
absolute right [B.].

A. PHILLIP COOPER HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE COMPLAINT FOR

DEFAMATION.

98
¶ 47. §. 199(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the magistrate not to take
cognizance of an offence of defamation in a case where the complaint is registered by a
person other than the aggrieved himself. “Person aggrieved” means a person who is injured
or one who is adversely affected in a legal sense.99 There are cases when the aggrieved person
is dead and there is always a room for complaints to be bought any other person.100

¶ 48. In the present case, the deceased was defamed by the RESPONDENTS and he
92
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174.
93
HemchandJha v. State of Bihar, (2008) 11 SCC 303.
94
Cambridge Dictionary last accessed on 9, August, 2020,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/planning.
95
Rajkishore Purohit v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3588.
96
Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 10 SCC 508.
97
Raghu Nath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi, (2006) SCC OnLine Delhi 221.
98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §. 199 (1).
99
M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala, (2000) 7 SCC 552.
100
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 600.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 10 | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

committed suicide.101 As per §. 199(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the brother of the
deceased can be considered as the “person aggrieved” who can register a complaint in place
of the deceased because he was adversely affected by the acts of RESPONDENTS defaming his
brother who holds a very reputed position in the society. Therefore, Phillip Cooper has the
locus standi to file the complaint for defamation.

G. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.

¶ 49. Article 19(1) (a)102 does not confer an absolute Right of Free Speech and Expression
but a qualified right which is also subject to some regulatory measures contained in Article
19(2).103 It is submitted that RESPONDENTS have misused their right and defamed Dauphin
and are liable to be punished as first, that Right to Reputation of the deceased is violated [1.];
second, all Fundamental Rights have to be exercised in balance [2.]; third, freedom of speech
and expression can be restricted to protect reputation [3.].

1. Right to Reputation of dauphin cooper is violated.

¶ 50. Reputation means the opinion of others about a person.104 Article 12 of Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with the reputation105 and considered it as an inalienable part of a complete
human being.106 “Reputation” makes life worth living107 and is considered as basic concept of
the essential dignity,108 a valuable privilege of ancient origin and necessary to human
society.109 Moreover, it is in the public interest that the reputation of public figures should not
be debased falsely and their protection of reputation is conducive to the public good.110

¶ 51. In the present case, Dauphin Cooper being a young politician held a respectable and
dignified position in the society.111 RESPONDENTS’ abusive and demeaning112 comments on
social media posts and false accusation damaged the reputation of the deceased which is basic
right guaranteed by both the Constitution and Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
101
Moot Proposition, Para 4.
102
Constitution Of India, 1950, Article 19(1) (a).
103
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 510.
104
Plato Films Ltd. v. Speidel, (1961) 1 All ER 876.
105
G.A 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, (December 10, 1948).
106
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 221.
107
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip kumar and Ors., (1983) 1 SCC 124.
108
Rosenblatt v. Baer, (1966) 383 United States 75.
109
Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and Ors., (1989) 1 SCC 494.
110
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (2001) 2 AC 127.
111
Moot Proposition, ¶ 1.
112
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, last accessed on 27, July, 2020,
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/demean#:~:text=1demean%20yourself
%20to%20do,Behavior%20like%20this%20demeans%20politics.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 11 | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Therefore, the Right to Reputation of the deceased is violated.

5. Fundamental Rights have to be exercised in balance.

¶ 52. A Fundamental Right cannot exist in isolation but should coexist in harmony with
Fundamental Right by others.113 A citizen is entitled to enjoy each and every right together
and clause (1) does not prefer one freedom to another.114

¶ 53. Fundamental Rights of citizens have to be balanced against the rights of citizens and
persons Under Article 21115 and often the important and competing values.116 It is the duty of
the Court to examine where the larger public interest lies and it is the paramount collective
interest which would ultimately prevail117

¶ 54. In the present case, it can be inferred that the RESPONDENTS has misused their rights
conferred by the constitution. As a young respected political leader and a public figure, the
interest of the deceased will prevail over the rights of the RESPONDENTS. Therefore, the
RESPONDENTS while exercising their fundamental Right of Free Speech and Expression
violated the Right to Reputation of the deceased and it is the court’s duty to ensure the
required checks and balance so as to protect the right of all individuals.

6. Freedom of speech and expression can be restricted to protect reputation.

¶ 55. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 118 recognizes right to
freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the Right of Reputation of others. 119
Reputation is the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life 120 and freedom of
speech may be restricted in order to protect reputation 121 which cannot be allowed to be
crucified at the altar of the other's Right of Free Speech.122

¶ 56. In the present case, the Right to Reputation of the deceased has been violated which
is the purest and precious perfume of an individual’s life and the same can be protected even
if it restricts right of the RESPONDENTS to exercise their Right to Freedom of Free Speech and
Expression. Therefore, Freedom of Speech and Expression can be restricted to protect the

113
Acharya Maharajshri v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 11.
114
Sakal papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
115
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1.
116
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603.
117
DTC v. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Supplementary 1 SCC 600.
118
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 17, (December 16, 1966).
119
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591.
120
VishwanathAgrawal v. Saral Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288.
121
Karako v. Hungary, (2011) 52 EHRR 36.
122
Id 106.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 12 | P a g e

 MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

reputation of the deceased.

¶ 57. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that RESPONDENTS are liable for defamation.

ISSUE VI. RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE FOR CYBER BULLYING.

¶ 58. It is submitted that bullying can be termed as to hurt or frighten someone, often over
a period of time.123 Ministry of Home Affairs defines cyber bullying as “A form of
harassment through electronic or communication devices” 124 which leaves scars on the
confidence of victim for the rest of life125 and recognize it as a cyber-crime.126

¶ 59. In the present case, the RESPONDENTS with the help of electronic devices hurt the
feelings of the deceased and his reputation. The online harassment not only made him a
criminal in the eyes of public but also forced him to take his life which he thought as the only
option to run away from all the fake allegations and the societal pressure.127

¶ 60. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that it is submitted that the RESPONDENTS are liable for Cyber Bullying.

ISSUE VII. HEERA AND HIS FRIENDS ARE LIABLE u/s. 66C OF THE IT ACT FOR
IDENTITY THEFT.

¶ 61. It is submitted that §. 66C deals with the punishment for identity theft and says
“whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person” will be punished for identity theft. 128
Biometric information is a unique identification feature of a person which also includes
photographs.129 Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly" 130 and "an act

123
Cambridge Dictionary, last accessed on 9, August, 2020,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bully.
124
Id 12.
125
National Centre for Biotechnology Information, Preventing Bullying, last accessed on 24 July, 2020,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK390414/.
126
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Citizen Manual for National Cybercrime Reporting Portal, last accessed on 24
July, 2020, https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/UploadMedia/MHA-CitizenManualReportOtherCyberCrime-
v10.pdf.
127
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
128
Information Technology Act, 2000, §. 66C.
129
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union Of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
130
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 24.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 13 | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

done fraudulently is the act done with the intent to defraud.131

¶ 62. In the present case, Heera and his friends used offensive pictures with face of
Dauphin cooper to dishonestly harm the reputation of the deceased. 132 The above-mentioned
acts of Heera and his friends cause a wrongful loss to the deceased.

¶ 63. In the light of the above-mentioned provisions, judgments and facts of the case it is
submitted that Heera and his friends are liable u/s. 66C of the IT Act.

131
Indian Penal Code, 1860, §. 25.
132
Moot Proposition, ¶ 2.

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 14 | P a g e

MEMORIAL for THE PETITIONER PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Orient, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that

I. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable under Article 136.

II. The suicide note can be the sole evidence for conviction.

III. The RESPONDENTS are liable for the abetment of suicide u/s. 306 r/w §. 107.

IV. The RESPONDENTS are liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s. 120B.

V. The RESPONDENTS are liable for the defamation of the deceased.

VI. The RESPONDENTS are liable for cyber bullying.

VII. Heera and his friends are liable u/s. 66C of the IT Act for identity theft.

And also, pass any order that The Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit in the interest of
equity, justice and good conscience.

For this gracious act of kindness, the PETITIONER shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: Republic of Orient Sd/-

Date: 29th August, 2020 COUNSEL for the PETITIONER

9TH INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020 XIII | P a g e