COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

DAGAPUR, SILIGURI

SUBJECT: - MOOT COURT.

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

ASST. PROF RUPA PRADHAN.

SUBMITTED BY:-
NAME:-MUKESH SINGH
COURSE:-B.COM, LLB (10TH SEMESTER)
ADMIT CARD NO: - 102/B.COM/LLB/16008
CLASS ROLL NO: - 07

pg. 1
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

IILS MOOT COURT

2019- 2020.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VIJAYNAGAR

ON SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VIJAYNAGAR

UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDICA.

PRASAD………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT 1
VIKRANT...................................................................…...APPELLANT 2

VERSUS

STATE OF DAKSHIN………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PETITONER.

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF

PRASAD AND VIKRANT

pg. 2
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS:-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-------------------------------------------------------------------03

 LEGISLATION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------03
 CASES REFERRED------------------------------------------------------------------------03
 BOOKS REFERRED-----------------------------------------------------------------------04
 LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES--------------------------------------------------04
 LEGAL DATABASES-----------------------------------------------------------------------04

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-----------------------------------------------------------06

STATEMENT OF FACTS-----------------------------------------------------------------------07

ISSUES RAISED------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS-------------------------------------------------------------------11

PLEADINGS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

I. Whether the capital punishment awarded to Prasad Justifiable?

II. Whether the life imprisonment given to Vikrant valid?

PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………19

pg. 3
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION:-

1. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. The Constitution of India, 1951
4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

CASES REFERRED:-

 Bachan Singh  v  State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898.

 Bhola Bhagat vs. State of Bihar [(1997) 8 SCC 720] 
 EdigaAnamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh  , AIR 1973 S.C. 774.
 Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr  S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3336 of 2006).
 Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973 1 SCC 20).
 Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Another  [(2005) 3 SCC 551]
 Rajinder Chandra vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [(2002) 2 SCC 287]
 Shiv Mohan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1977) 3 SCR 172

BOOKS REFERRED:-

th
 P.M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUION OFINDIA, (14 ed., 2017).
th
 H.M. Seervai, CONSTITUTIONALLAW OFINDIA, (4 ed., 2010).
 Dr. J.N. Pandey, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51st ed., 2014).
 Dr. S.C. Kashyap, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1st ed., 2008).
 M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed., 2015).
 Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (34th ed., 2014)

pg. 4
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

LAW LEXICON AND DICTIONARIES:-

 www.manupatra.co.in/
 Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.co.in/ Live Law www.livelaw.in/
 SCC Online www.scconline.in/
 The Wire www.thewire.in/
 Calcutta High Court www.calcuttahighcourt.nic.in/
 All India library www.allindialibrary.co.in/

LEGAL DATABASES:-

 Merriam-Webster's Law Dictionary: Legal Terms in Plain English

 Dictionary of Law - Oxford Reference
 Black's Law Dictionary

pg. 5
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors. Others
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court
V. Versus

PIL Public Interest Litigation

§ Section

Corp. Corporation

cl. Clause

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

J. Justice

u/a Under article

LR Law Review

Vol. Volume

NCT National Capital Territory

IPC Indian Penal Code

JK Jammu Kashmir

TADA Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act

pg. 6
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:-

The Hon’ble High Court of Vijaynagar has the jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Article
227 of the Constitution of Indica, which states that

Article 227 in the Constitution of Indica 1949

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any
such courts

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks
and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause ( 2 ) or clause
( 3 ) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and
shall require the previous approval of the Governor

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of

superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces

pg. 7
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS:-

1) The State of Dakshin of Union of Indica had witnessed increasing number of crimes
with respect to eve teasing and stalking. Kellore, Vijaynagar and Mannur are cities in
the State of Dakshin.

2) Prasad, 22 year old male, is a waiter at Bhojan Hotel (located at GB Nagar in the city
of Kellore), while his friend Vikrant, 17 year old male, works at a cycle repair shop
just opposite Bhojan Hotel. Prasad hails from a well to do family in a city named
Mannur (State of Dakshin) but fled his parental home due to continuous bickering and
humiliation of him by his parents and presently stays 2kms from the Bhojan Hotel.
Vikrant on the other hand hails from a very poor family staying at a chawl located 3
kms from the Bhojan Hotel, barely managing his and his family’s survival. He is the
sole bread earner in the family.

3) Prithya, a 25 year old woman is a resident of Vijaynagar. She works at a call centre in
Kellore from 10am to 7pm every day. The Call centre, Bhojan Hotel as well as the
cycle repair shop all is located within 300 meters of each other. Prithya is a regular
passenger of Dakshin express running between Kellore to Vijaynagar. Prithya’s daily
transit consisted of taking a public transport bus from KT bus stop located near the
call centre to reach Kellore railway station and then boarding the Dakshin Express
local running from Kellore station to Vijaynagar station. On reaching Vijaynagar
station, she used to board another bus originating from a bus depot adjacent
Vijaynagar station to finally reach her residence.

4) It was 8th June, 2018, when Prasad and Vikrant had seen Prithya for the first time on
when she had visited Bhojan Hotel with some of her friends. After Prasad first set
eyes on Prithya, he felt attracted to her and confided his feeling to his friend Vikrant.
Since they first saw Prithya at Bhojan Hotel, Prasad and his friend Vikrant
continuedstalking and eve teasing Prithya frequently till the time she waited at KT bus
stop.Prithya repeatedly warned Prasad and Vikrant of grave consequences but both

pg. 8
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

laughed it off as a baseless threat.On 3rd July, 2018; Vikrant had challenged and
dared Prasad to be bold and convey his feelings to Prithya thereby instigating him by
questioning his manhood. Agitated by the continuous questioning of his manhood,
Prasad approached and proposed Prithya while she was waiting at the KT bus stop the
very same day along with Vikrant. Prithya rejected the unwelcoming advance by
Prasad and slapped him in front of bystanders present near the KT bus stop which
offended Prasad deeply. In a fit of rage, Prasad threatened Prithya of revenge and left
the place with Vikrant. Fearing the backlash, Prithya filed a FIR against Prasad and
Vikrant at Kellore police station for threatening, stalking and eve teasing by Prasad
and Vikrant.

5) After a week, on 10th July, 2018, Prasad and Vikrant continued to stalk Prithya while
she was leaving from her workplace. She left her workplace little late at 8:00 pm (on
10th July, 2018) and boarded the Dakshin Express local from Kellore railway station
at 8:30 pm. The compartment which Prithya boarded was empty. Vikrant and Prasad
were seen boarding the adjacent compartment as the train had started to depart.
Prithya reached Vijaynagar railway station around 9:15 pm where she purchased
packaged drinking water bottle at a small shop around the Vijaynagar bus stop where
Prasad again tried to convince Prithya to give in to his charms, but Prithya out rightly
rejected him and slapped him again.

6) Angered by the rejection, while Prithya was a little far away from the shop and was
moving towards the bus depot located adjoining the Vijaynagar Station to board the
bus to reach home, Prasad nabbed her and compelled Vikrant to help him drag her to
an abandoned and secluded tea stall where they tied her up and stuffed her mouth with
handkerchief to limit her cries. Subsequently Prasad raped herin a fit of rage and
cautioned Vikrant of consequences if he ever narrated this event to anyone else. On
hearing voices of some strangers approaching in their direction, both Prasad and
Vikrant fled the spot separately leaving Prithya at her own risk. Around 11:00 pm,
Vikrant returned back where Prithya was abandoned and raped her to fulfil his lust.
Prithya was still alive but in semi-conscious state and was resisting the onslaught with
whatever little energy that was left in her. In order to control her, Vikrant hit her with
stone on various parts of the body after which she stopped resisting and somehow
Vikrant dragged her and threw her in a gutter flowing nearby the abandoned tea stall.

pg. 9
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

Around 12:00 am, 11th July 2018, some nearby villager passing by noticed Prithya’s
lifeless body and rushed her to a nearby Government hospital, where she succumbed
to her injuries around 12:30 am, 11th July 2018. The body was later on taken for post
– mortem as Prithya was declared dead by the concerned hospital authorities.

7) On 15th July, 2018, the post-mortem reports confirmed bruises on the vaginal wall
opening and inner thighs. Lacerated wound with a surrounding abraded contusion on
left side of forehead above eye brow, on right side of forehead just above eyebrow
and contusion of left temporalis mused, involving its whole thickness. The left orbital
margin showed a fissured fracture. The floor of left side of anterior cranial fosse also
showed fracture. There is traumatic disruption of stem of pituitary gland and left lobe
of brain showed multiple areas of haemorrhage.

8) After due investigation, the police found the record of FIR from the Kellore police
station filed by the victim against the suspects (Prasad and Vikrant). After which
police arrested Prasad and Vikrant for further investigations on 17th July, 2018. On
the next day 18th July, 2018, both the suspects/accused were medically examined and
Prasad was presentedbefore the Sessions Court of Vijaynagar while Vikrant was
produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) of Vijaynagar. The JJB made a
preliminary assessment and sent Vikrant to Children’s Court at Vijaynagar to be tried
as an adult.

9) On 30th September, 2018, the Sessions Court convicted Prasad guilty for the offences
of murder and rape and awarded capital punishment to him whereas Children’s Court
awarded life imprisonment to Vikrant for murder and rape. On 4th October, 2018,
Prasad appealed before the Hon’ble High Court of Vijaynagar against the verdict
given by Sessions Court challenging the capital punishment awarded to him while
Vikrant appealed before the Hon’ble High Court of Vijaynagar challenging the
verdict given by Children’s Court for trying him as an adult and sentencing life
imprisonment to him.

pg. 10
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

ISSUES RAISED:-

ISSUES 1:-

WHETHERTHE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AWARDED TO PRASAD

JUSITIFIABLE OR NOT?

ISSUES 2:-

WHETHERTHE LIFE IMPRISONMENT GRANTED TO VIKRANT VALID OR

NOT?

pg. 11
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS:-

I. WHETHER THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AWARDED TO PRASAD

JUSITIFIABLE?

The Counsel on behalf of the Appellants humbly submits to the Hon’ble HC of Vijaynagar
that the accused Prasad should not be granted with capital punishment.

II. WHETHERTHE LIFE IMPRISONMENT GRANTED TO VIKRANT

VALID?

It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Appellants before the Hon’ble Court that the life
imprisonment awarded to Vikrant tried in the Children’s Court is not valid and thus, the
decision of the Sessions Court should be reversed accordingly.

pg. 12
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

PLEADINGS:-

I. WHETHER THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AWARDED TO PRASAD

JUSITIFIABLE?

It is humbly submitted by the Counsel on behalf of the Appellant before the Hon’ble Court
that the capital punishment awarded to the accused Prasad is not justifiable as the punishment
is violative of Article 141 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Article 14 of the Constitution which deals with the right to equality is being violated by the
concept of capital punishment. It also violates the provision laid down under Article 19 2 of
the Constitution of India.

Further, Article 213 of the Constitution of India that provides the fundamental right to life to
every citizen is violated through the concept of capital punishment and thus, the punishment
should be reduced to life imprisonment and the death penalty given to the accused should be
waived off.
In the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.4 which was the first case dealing with the
question of constitutional validity of capital punishment in India. The counsel for the
appellant, in this case, had put forward three arguments which invalidate section 302 5 of the
IPC.

Firstly, that execution takes away all the fundamental rights guaranteed under Clauses (a) to
(g) of Sub-clause (1) of Article 196 and, therefore the law with regard to capital sentence is
unreasonable and not in the interest of the general public.

1
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
2
19. (1) All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
3
21. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
4
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, (1973 1 SCC 20).
5
302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or 1[imprisonment for
life], and shall also be liable to fine.
6
Supra Note 2.

pg. 13
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
Secondly that the discretion invested in the Judges to impose capital punishment is not based
on any standards or policy required by the Legislature for imposing capital punishment in
preference to imprisonment for life.

Thirdly, he contended, the uncontrolled and unguided discretion in the Judges to impose
capital punishment or imprisonment for life is hit by Article 147 of the Constitution because
two persons found guilty of murder on similar facts are liable to be treated differently one
forfeiting his life and the other suffering merely a sentence of life imprisonment.

Lastly, it was contended that the provisions of the law do not provide a procedure for trial of
factors and circumstances crucial for making the choice between the capital penalty and
imprisonment for life. The trial under the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to the question
of guilt. In the absence of any procedure established by law in the matter of sentence, the
protection given by Article 21 of the Constitution was violated and hence for that reason also
the sentence of death is unconstitutional.

The case of Bachan Singh v State of Punjab8 again brought up the question of the validity of
capital punishment. This was the case that gave birth to the “rarest of the rare cases” doctrine
and still remains one of the most important cases in this subject. The 5 judge bench said:

“A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a
life through law instrumentality. That ought not to be done except in rarest of rare cases
where the alternative opinion  is unquestionably foreclosed.”9

In this case, not only the constitutional validity of death penalty but also the validity
of Section 354(3) on the grounds that it gives unguided discretion to the Court and allows the
death sentence to be arbitrarily awarded was questioned. The majority were of the view that
neither Article 1910 nor 2111 is violated by capital punishment.

7
Supra Note 1.
8
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
9
EdigaAnamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1973 S.C. 774.
10
Supra Note 2.
11
Supra Note 3.

pg. 14
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
The fact that our Constitution makers were fully cognizant of the fact that death sentence may
be given in certain extreme crimes is proven by the existence of provisions for
appeal (Article 134) and Pardoning power of the President (Article 72).

Considering all the above-mentioned factors, the Counsel on behalf of the Appellants humbly
put forward before the Hon’ble HC that the capital punishment awarded to the accused
Prasad should be waived off as it is not justifiable in the eyes of law.

Section 354(3) Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to
be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
five years, and shall also be liable to fine].

Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Article 21 :- Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Article 134 (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or

(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) 1[certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court 12:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be
12
In Shiv Mohan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1977) 3 SCR 172.

pg. 15
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court
may establish or require.

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified
in such law.

Article 72. (1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or
remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person
convicted of any offence— (a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court
Martial; (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law
relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; (c) in all cases where
the sentence is a sentence of death.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any
officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by
a Court Martial.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or
commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor 1*** of a State under any law for
the time being in force

Jagmohan Singh vs The State Of U.P13.

The impossibility of laying down standard (in the matter of sentencing) is at the very core of
criminal law as administered in India which invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in
the matter of fixing the degree of punishment and that this discretion in the matter of sentence
is liable to be corrected by superior courts.... The exercise of judicial discretion on well
recognised principles is, in the final analysis, the safest possible safeguard for the accused.

13
AIR 1973 SC 947

pg. 16
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
II. WHETHER THE LIFE IMPRISONMENT GRANTED TO VIKRANT
VALID?

The Counsel on behalf of the Appellants humbly submit before the Hon’ble HC of
Vijaynagarthat in the present case rewarding of life imprisonment to the minor Vikrant is not
valid as it not only affects his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India
but also prohibits him from trying and becoming a changed human being, which any minor
accused has the right to, and the Juvenile Justice Act clearly provides for.
In the instant case, the minor accused, Vikrant has been tried as an adult in the Children’s
Court and has been awarded with life imprisonment for offences of rape and murder. The
imposition of life imprisonment is not valid as it violates more than 0ne provision laid down
under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Firstly, it is Section-19 of JJ Act which deals with the situation and therefore the same is
reproduced as:

“Section-19. Powers of Children’s Court.—(1) After the receipt of preliminary assessment

from the Board under section 15, the Children’s Court may decide that— (i) there is a need
for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and
section 21, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a
child friendly atmosphere; (ii) there is no need for trial of the child 14 as an adult and may
conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions
of section 18.15

14
Bhola Bhagat vs. State of Bihar [(1997) 8 SCC 720] 
15
18. No joint proceeding of juvenile and person not a juvenile.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any offence together
with a person who is not a juvenile.

(2) If a juvenile is accused of an offence for which under section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, such juvenile and any person who is not a juvenile
would, but for the prohibition contained in sub-section (1), have been charged and tried together, the Board
taking cognizance of that offence shall direct separate trials of the juvenile and the other person.

pg. 17
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
(2) The Children’s Court shall ensure that the final order, with regard to a child in conflict
with law, shall include an individual care plan for the rehabilitation of child, including follow
up by the probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker.

(3) The Children’s Court shall ensure that the child who is found to be in conflict with law is
sent to a place of safety till he attains the age of twenty-one years and thereafter, the person
shall be transferred to a jail: Provided that the reformative services including educational
services, skill development, alternative therapy such as counselling, behaviour modification
therapy, and psychiatric support shall be provided to the child during the period of his stay in
the place of safety.

(4) The Children’s Court shall ensure that there is a periodic follow up report every year by
the probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker, as required, to
evaluate the progress of the child in the place of safety and to ensure that there is no ill-
treatment to the child in any form.

(5) The reports under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded to the Children’s Court for record
and follow up, as may be required”.

Most significant provision is clause-1(i) which says “there is a need for trial of the child as an
adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass
appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and section 21,
considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child
friendly atmosphere”. This provision authorizes the court to pass such orders as may be
appropriate but the same should firstly be subject to the other provisions of the same Section-
19 and then also to the provisions of Section-21. 16This provision of Section 21 is prohibitory
in nature and asks the court not to pass an order of two types, first, a sentence of death and
second, a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

16
21. “Order that may not be passed against a child in conflict with law.- No child in conflict with law shall be
sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under
the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any other law for the
time being in force”.

pg. 18
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER
The JJ Act was enacted for the benefit of juveniles in conflict with law. The exception of
adult trial of juveniles has to be read as a rare, extra ordinary creation of the Parliament and
has to be strictly considered and therefore, the provisions of JJ Act cannot override a law
which otherwise provides certain beneficial treatment to the juveniles. In such
circumstances17, if there is any other law which provides for early release of offender or
requires that an offender of tender age may not be sent to jail, the same shall have to be given
precedence over the JJ Act in respect of imposing sentence on a juvenile18 tried as an adult.

Thus, the Counsel on behalf of the Appellants humbly submit before the Hon’ble High Court
of Vijaynagar that the sentence of life imprisonment has been wrongly imposed upon the
accused and the provision of the JJ Act is not strictly followed.

Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr  19  In the instant case, the appellant was arrested on
30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section
2  a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or
a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years. It is with the enactment of
the Juvenile Justice  Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean
a child who had not completed eighteen years of age which was given prospective prospect.
However, as indicated hereinbefore after the decision in Pratap
Singh's case  (supra),  Section 2(l) was amended to define a juvenile in conflict with law to
mean a  juvenile  who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed
eighteen years of age as on the date of commission of such offence; Section 7A was
introduced in the 2000 Act and Section 20 thereof was amended whereas Rule 12 was
included in the  Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, which gave retrospective effect to the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice  Act, 2000,
made provision for the claim of juvenility to be raised before any Court at any stage, as has
been done in this case, and such claim was required to be determined in terms of the
provisions contained in the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, even if
the juvenile had ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the Act.
Accordingly, a juvenile who had not completed eighteen years on the date of commission of
the offence was also entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice  Act, 2000, as if the
provisions of Section 2(k) had always been in existence even during the operation of the
1986 Act.

17
Rajinder Chandra vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [(2002) 2 SCC 287]
18
Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Another [(2005) 3 SCC 551]
19
Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr  S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3336 of 2006).

pg. 19
 COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF PETITONER

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THAT
THE HON‟BLE HIGH COURT OF VIJAYNAGAR:

A. TO DECLARE THAT THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AWARDED TO PRASAD

BE REDUCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT

B. TO DECLARE THAT THELIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVEN TO VIKRANT IS

NOT VALID

AND/OR

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR

THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND

SHALL EVER PRAY.

(COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER)

pg. 20