Sei sulla pagina 1di 45

TEAM CODE:

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT


COURT COMPETITION, 2019- WEST ROUNDS

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS

JUDGE OF ANDHA

C.C. NO OF 110 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF MAHA (PROSECUTION)

VERSUS

Ms. ANKITA AND ORS (DEFENSE)

FOR THE OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE


SECTION 153A, 306 AND SECTION 84B, 84C OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE


2

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... 3

Acts And Legislation: ................................................................................................................

List of Cases...............................................................................................................................

Books Referred ..........................................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDTICTION ....................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................................. 9

Ankita ..........................................................................................................................................

Suman Sekar…………………………………………………………………………………….

Rohit Sippy………………………………………………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED… ................................................................................................ 14

PRAYERS… ............................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................ 28

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


3

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ACTS AND LEGISLATION:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

4. Information Technology Act, 2000

LIST OF CASES:

• Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O

Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India & Ors 1988 AIR 775

• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)

• Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411

• Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment

Association vs. Shri Anjan Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013

• Ramesh kumar vs state of chattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618

• State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994

• Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State(Government of NCT of New Delhi) 2009 16 SCC

• Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438

• Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731

BOOKS REFEREED:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


4

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal – The Indian Penal Code 31st Edition 2007
2. Sarkar – Law of Evidence 17th Edition 2011
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by Ram Jethmalani 2015 Edition
4. Hari Singh Gour’s commentary on Indain Penal Code 14th Edition
5. Batuklal’s commentary on Indian Penal Code,1860
6. B.B. Mitra’s commentary on Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 19th edition

LAW DICTIONARIES/LEXICONS:

1. Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


5

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

List of Abbreviations

A.I.R All India Reporter

S.C Supreme Court

S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

Govt Government

Anr Another

Ors Others

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedural Code

I.T Information Technology

SD Signed Under

v/s Versus

S.C.R Supreme Court Records

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

& And

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


6

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter pursuant to S. 177 read with S. 209

read with S. 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it

was committed.

2209 Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it

When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the

Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of

Session, he shall-

(a) Commit, after Complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be,

the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the

accused the custody until Such commitment has been made;

(b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and

until the conclusion of, the trial;

c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be

produced in evidence;

(d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

1
§ 177 Code of Crim. Proc.
2
§ 209 Code of Crim. Proc.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
7

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS
3223(d) What persons may be charged jointly, the following persons may be charged and tried

together, namely:-

(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction

3
§ 223(d) Code of Crim. Proc.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
8

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

• The Union of Allogria is a Democratic Republic in South of Ragni, which has a very high rate

of suicide. The state of Maha has the highest suicide rate in the Union of Allogoria, especially

among the youth. Maha is also Allogoria’s entertainment center; they run one of the most

famous reality TV shows. One of the popular show-Baazi-ghar has a wide audience span

across the whole of Allogria.

• The show has 10 contestants and at the end of the week the housemates reveal a nominee for

eviction from the house and later one of them is evicted through nomination. One of the

housemates, Pooja who was addicted speedogram had one million followers. Pooja would lose

her cool very easily and would also shout at other housemates. This quickly earned her the

name of the “most hated person”. She was also active on speedogram and took polls on which

housemate she should evict. The producers would telecast her speedogram usage on TV.

• Ankita, another contestant, was not very fond of Pooja due to Pooja’s arrogant behavior and

would get into fights. After one of their fights, Ankita called Pooja worthy of nothing and due

to her addiction to speedogram Pooja went on speedogram and typed “Haha, I am useless,

should I die?” She got a 100 replies and 75% said that she should die.

• On 08.08.2018, Pooja had not left her room and at 11 AM, Karthik forced open the door and

had found her with her eyes open but her pulse absent with an empty bottle of melatonin and a

red sipper having traces of alcohol. Karthik immediately called the health service who

declared her dead around 2 am.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


9

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

ANKITA

Ms. Ankita Singh has been charged under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 153A

(Creating disharmony between two groups of people) of the Indian Penal Code.

ROHIT SIPPY

Mr. Rohit Sippy has been charged under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 84b (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the Information Technology act.

SUMAN SEKAR

Mr. Suman Sekar has been charged under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 153A(Creating disharmony between two groups of people) of the Indian Penal

Code

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


10

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I. WHETHER ANKITA IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF

SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 306 AND 153A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

The charges levelled by prosecution against Ankita are baseless and without any substance, it is

contended that Ankita is not liable U/s 306 and 153A of IPC on the following grounds-

➢ Firstly, S. 306 of IPC holds an offender criminally liable if the act done by him is done with

the intention or knowledge that his act would have caused victim’s death. It is humbly

contended that Ankita did not intend to cause Pooja’s death neither had the knowledge that his

act would result in injuring that would have caused Pooja’s death. It was the concept of the

show to stage fights and to create controversies in order to gain popularity. Ankita had no

intention whatsoever to kill Pooja and she said everthing in spit of anger.

Further, Pooja was a hypersensitive person and she was on psychological medication of which

Ankita was not aware of. Any word said in a normal course of argument caused her deep

grievances, which was not a fault of Ankita. If she had prior mental health issues, she

should’ve not participated keeping in mind the concept of the show.

➢ Secondly, U/s 153A of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who

Is responsible to create disharmony amongst two group of people on the basis of religion, race, place

of birth, residence ,language, caste or community or any other ground. Actions of Ankita clearly

imply that she did not wanted to hurt the sentiments of any community, it was just a taunt towards

Pooja.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
11

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

Furthermore, she did not have any hatred towards the concerned group of people, she just wanted to

speak her anger out and everthing she said was in rage of anger and was not directed towards any

community of people.

ISSUE II. WHETHER ROHIT SIPPY IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT OF

SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND

SECTION 84B OF THE IT ACT

The charges levelled by prosecution against Rohit are baseless and without any substance, it is

contended that Ankita is not liable U/s 306 of IPC and U/s 84B of IT Act on the following grounds-

➢ Firstly, U/s 306 of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who

‘Abets a Person to commit Suicide’. In order to hold a person criminally liable U/s 306 of

IPC, three essentials are required to be proven. Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide,

secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an

act and thirdly, such the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.

The Medical Reports show that the deceased died due to overdose of Melatonin pills mixed with

alcohol implying suicide. Not removing the content from the host’s platform and allowing its users to

promote suicide implies instigation on behalf of the accused. Further, the poll was posted on the

host’s website which was under the supervision of the accused shows direct involvement to the crime

committed.

➢ Secondly, Section 79 of the IT Act states that if the host does not select the receiver; transmit

the information and modify the information then he is not liable for any charge under the IT

Act.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


12

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

➢ Thirdly, the intermediary is liable to remove any content after an order from the court or any

government agency. No such order was received by the intermediary.

➢ Fourthly, there is no relevant section under the IT Act that mentions abetment of suicide which

can be charged by the prosecution which makes the ground for this charge non-existent.

ISSUE III. WHETHER SUMAN SEKAR IS LIABLE FOR COMMISSION OF ABETMENT

OF SUICIDE OF POOJA UNDER SECTIONS 306 AND 153A OF THE INDIAN PENAL

CODE

The charges levelled by prosecution against Suman are baseless and without any substance, it is

contended that Suman is not liable U/s 306 and 153A of IPC on the following grounds-

➢ Firstly, U/s 306 of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who

‘Abets a Person to commit Suicide’. In order to hold a person criminally liable U/s 306 of

IPC, three essentials are required to be proven. Firstly, the deceased should have committed suicide,

secondly, the accused under this section should have abetted or instigated him/her to commit such an

act and thirdly, such the alleged involvement of the accused should be direct in nature.

➢ The facts clearly establish that Suman had no knowledge that Pooja will commit suicides due

to fights and the telecast. The poll posted on Speedogram was posted with funny emojis so it

didn’t become a matter of concern. And the concept of the show was based on controversies to

which Pooja had consented so Suman wasn’t aware that Pooja would take the fights seriously

which would lead to her suicide.

➢ Further, there was no benefit that Suman could receive by killing pooja and it is impossible to

establish any intent on behalf of the accused. Suman was also not involved directly as he was

a mere producer of the show and he just wanted popularity.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


13

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

➢ Secondly, U/s 153A of IPC, this section holds criminal liability against a person who

Is responsible to create disharmony amongst two group of people on the basis of religion, race, place

of birth, residence ,language, caste or community or any other ground. No Action of Suman implies

that he wanted to hurt the sentiments of the different Nationalities to which Pooja’s Parents belong.

Suman had only telecasted the footage and had not said the words himself. Further, the words said by

Ankita were meant to be treated as taunts towards Pooja and it was not possible to anticipate that

these words were capable enough to incite hatred towards any group of people

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


14

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether Ankita is liable for the commission of criminal offences under the Indian

Penal Code.

I. A. That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Ankita under Section 306 of the IPC

It is humbly submitted that to prove the liability of Ankita u/s 3064 of the IPC, the essential

ingredients of this section need to be established. These essential ingredients are that

1) That any person commits suicide

2) That such suicide was committed by the consequence of an abetment

3) That the abetment was made by the accused

I.A.1 Pooja’s death was caused by suicide.

(¶1.) It is humbly submitted that as per the facts of the case along with the Post Mortem Report and

Forensic Report, Pooja’s death was caused by overdosage of melatonin along with liquor. The

Melatonin was consumed by Pooja of her own accord and hence Pooja’s death is a result of suicide.5

I.A.2 Pooja’s death was not caused by the consequence of an abetment.

(¶2.) Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be

liable to fine."

4
Section 306 of IPC
5
Case Factsheet-Page 4 Paragraph 22, Post Mortem Report-Annexure-, Forensic Report-Annexure-
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
15

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC,

the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was

abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an

"abetment" for the commission of the crime. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in

Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows6:

"107. Abetment of a thing : A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or

persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in

pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by

any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. It is manifest that under all the three situations,

direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is

essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who

"instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning

of the said word was considered by Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh7

which defined instigation as instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do

"an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must

be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive

of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being

spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created

such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which

case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without

intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

6
Section 107 of IPC
7
Ramesh kumar vs state of chattisgarh: (2001) 9 SCC 618
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
16

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or

encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of

the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction"8; "to

keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" 9. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard

to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a

particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates

another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the

doing of an act by the latter. Ankita’s fights and misunderstandings with Pooja were ordinary and

expected in a reality show.

I.A.3 Pooja was a hypersensitive person.

(¶3.) The supreme Court in State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another held that if it

transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance

discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and

such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced

individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for

basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.10

(¶4.) Pooja was raised in a wealthy and privileged environment and was snobbish.11 She was suffering

from Insomnia and had been prescribed melatonin doses. 12 Due to her snobbish nature and short

temper she couldn’t get along with the housemates including Ankita and had regular fights. These

fights, which were to be expected given the nature of the show made her very frustrated.13 She earned

the title of ‘most hated’14 She availed the mental healthcare facilities provided by the show, However,

this was kept confidential from the other participants and the audience. Along with this, she was also

8
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
9
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition
10
State Of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal And Another AIR 1994 SC 1418, 1994
11
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 9
12
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 9
13
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 10
14
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
17

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

obsessively addicted to Speedogram.15 All of these things lead to the conclusion that her mental state

was fragile and unhealthy.

(¶5.) Thus, Pooja due to her mental state, reacted disproportionately to Ankita’s words and as further

aggravated by her Instagram poll which was supposed to funny but was taken seriously by Pooja.

I.A.4. Ankita’s did not have the mens rea to abet Pooja’s suicide.

(¶6.) In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State on 10 August, 2009, The Supreme Court

observed that the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation in abetment to

commit suicide. 16

(¶7.) Though it is true that Ankita wanted to win the competition and wanted to get Pooja eliminated,

it does not mean that she wanted to instigate her to commit suicide. Further, she was also compelled

to use harsh words because of Pooja’s behaviour such as not completing tasks.17

I.A.5 Ankita said the words ‘you might as well die’ some harsh words to Pooja in a fit of anger

And thus cannot be considered as instigation.

(¶8.) In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr , the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant who

was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the

quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die' .This Court was of the view that mere

words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to

instigate the deceased to commit suicide. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without

intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.18 This has been

reiterated in Mahendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P 19

15
Case Fact sheet-Page 2 Paragraph 9
16
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State(Government of NCT of New Delhi) 2009 16 SCC
17
Case Factsheet- Page 3 Paragraph 17
18
Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438
19
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
18

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

(¶9.) To understand whether Pooja’s words “Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a

lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and

might as well die.you might as well die” were used intentionally or in a fit of anger, the context has to

be referenced. On 6.8.18, Pooja woke up late and missed the time to clean the house which meant that

all the responsibility fell on Ankita, Prithvi and Karthik and thus having been frustrated, Ankita said

the above words.20

Hence, the charges levelled by the prosecution against Ankita do not hold and it is contended that

Ankita is not liable U/s 306 of IPC.

I. B That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Ankita under Section 153-A of the IPC

I. B.1 Ankita’s words do not refer to any two communities either explicitly or implicitly

(¶10.) In order to attract the provisions of Section 153-A, it is necessary that at least two groups or

communites should be involved.21 Ankita’s words did not refer to any two communities either

explicitly or implicitly and were merely comments about Pooja’s habits and behaviour on the show.

I.B.2. Ankita’s words were not intended to cause any enmity or ill-will.

(¶11.) The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence

under Section 153 A IPC.22 The below stated words do not suggest any intention of Ankita in

promoting enmity between two communities and clearly seem to be words which were said in the

20
Case Factsheet- Page 3 Paragraph 17
21 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)
22
Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
19

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

course of the reality show in which the both Ankita and Pooja as participants were under a lot of

stress.23

“Pooja is a menace in this world and people like her don’t last long.”24

“I have had enough of Pooja’s blackmail and would soon get rid of her”25

“I will get rid of Pooja one way or other”.5

“I want to get rid of Pooja”.26

“Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with

the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and might as well die.”6

“Pooja is a mad girl, Karthik, you should focus on the finale instead of wasting your time on

pampering hybrid Pooja.” 27

I.B.3. Ankita’s words could not cause any enmity between any communities

(¶12.) The effect of Ankita’s words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong- minded,

firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger

in every hostile point of view.28 The words uttered by Ankita stated in above paragraph would hardly

incite any hatred or enmity in the mind of a reasonable, strong minded person as it does not speak

hatefully against any particular community.

(¶13.) In several cases concerning S. 153-A Courts held that in estimating the effect of a speech the

Court should look at any speech as a whole and not pay undue regard to any particular sentence or

phrase.29 The words should not be examined in isolation but should be seen with the context in which

23
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 2-Paragraph 7
24
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 2-Paragraph 11
25
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 16
26
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 17
27
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 20
28
Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India
& Ors 1988 AIR 775
29
Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan
Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


20

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

they were uttered. Ankita and Pooja were competitors in a very stressful reality show and Ankita said

the above mentioned things out of frustration and anger at Pooja’s behaviour such as not completing

tasks assigned to her.30

ISSUE II. Whether Rohit Sippy is liable for commission of criminal offences under the Indian

Penal Code and Information Technology Act

II.A That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Rohit under s. 306 of IPC

II.A.1 Rohit did not have the intention or knowledge to abet Pooja to commit suicide.

(¶14.)The necessary ingredient of Section 306 of IPC that is intention31 is absent. It is humbly

contended that the act of Rohit was not under prior intention or knowledge of harming Pooja. He was

a mere host of the website and the poll was posted by the deceased herself. A reasonable time is

required to remove such content as Speedogram is a popular website with billions of users and it is

difficult to keep track of everyone’s activity. The suicide was committed shortly after the poll which

didn’t gave the accused a reasonable response time. Moreover, the poll was posted with funny emojis

so it became more difficult by his systems to identify the same.

II.A.2 Rohit was not involved directly in the poll

(¶15.) It is humbly contended the poll was posted by the deceased on her own will. He did not intend

to cause injury to Pooja voluntarily. The pre-requisite of S.306 of I.P.C. is direct involvement in the

30
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 16
31
Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
21

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

abetment32, there being no ambiguity regarding the same as Rohit’s website only acted as a host.

Moreover, according to the facts, after receiving response on the poll, she did not commit suicide on

the same day. The poll was posted on 6th of August whereas she committed suicide on 8th of August.

This further establishes that the suicide is not a direct consequence.

II.B That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Rohit under s. 84b of the IT Act

II.B.1 Exception of Intermediary in certain cases

(¶16.) According to Section 79 of the IT Act, Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the

time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not

be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by

him. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if– (a) the function of the intermediary is

limited to providing access to a communication system over which information made available by

third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or hosted; or (b) the intermediary does not– (i)

initiate the transmission, (ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and (iii) select or modify the

information contained in the transmission; (c) the intermediary observes due diligence while

discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central

Government may prescribe in this behalf.

And according to the facts, Rohit Sippy did not initiate the transmission, nor he selected the receiver

and neither did he selected or modified the information. This exception releases him of all the liability

under the IT act.

II.B.2 Absence of Any order by Court or Government Agency

(¶17.) It is humbly submitted that an intermediary is liable to remove any immoral or obscene content

after receiving an order from the court or any government agency as held in the case of Shreya

32
Gurcharan Singh v/s State of Punjab, Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


22

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

Singhal v. The Union of India33, the order from which is stated as “Section 79 is valid subject to

Section 79(3)(4) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from

a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts

relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable

access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules,

2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the

judgment.”

II.B.3 No relevant Section in the IT Act

(¶18.) It is humbly contented that the according to the charges put forth by the prosecution for Mr.

Sippy, he is charged for abetment of offences under Section 84(B) under the IT act but after a careful

examination of the same reproduced below, it is seen that Section 84(B) talks only about offences

under the Information Technology Act, i.e. offences listed in Chapter XI sections 65 to 75; none of

which are applied against Rohit Sippy. As there is no relevant section in the Information Technology

act which makes abetment of suicide as an offence under the IT Act, this charge becomes non-

existent.

‘84B. Punishment for abetment of offences34.–Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is

committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Act for the

punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under this

Act. Explanation.–An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is

committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which

constitutes the abetment.’

33
Shreya Singhal v. The Union of India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73
34
The Information Technology Act.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
23

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

ISSUE III: Whether Suman Shekar is liable for the commission of criminal offences under the

Indian Penal Code.

III.A That criminal liability cannot be attributed against Suman under S. 306 of IPC

III.A.1 Suman did not have the intention or knowledge to abet Pooja to commit suicide.

(¶19.) It is humbly contended that the act of Suman was not under prior intention or knowledge of

harming Pooja. He was just a producer of the show and he was not in direct contact with the deceased.

The fights took place without involving the producer, moreover, the deceased had prior knowledge

regarding the nature of the show to which she had consented. The producer had made required

arrangements like treatment of psychiatrist and weekly parties to take the tension off the shoulders of

the participants.

III.A.2 Suman was not involved directly in any situation

(¶20.) It is humbly contended the poll was posted by the deceased on her own will.

He did not intend to cause injury to Pooja voluntarily. The pre-requisite of S.306 of I.P.C. is direct

involvement in the abetment, there being no ambiguity regarding the same as Suman was just a

producer of the show. Moreover, according to the facts, Pooja knew the nature of the show and she

participated voluntarily. This further establishes that the suicide is not a direct consequence.

III.A.3 Suman was not aware of the mental state of Pooja

(¶21.) It is humbly stated that Pooja had mental health issues before joining the show, which were not

known to Suman Sekar. Furthermore, the issues that the participants shared with the in-house
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
24

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

psychiatrist, were kept confidential and even the producer was kept out of the loop. Therefore, Suman

could not have anticipated such suicide by Pooja as fights and arguments were counted as normal in a

full day course keeping in mind the nature of the show.

III.A.4 Popularity based Show

(¶22.) It is humbly contented that the show was based on popularity. As the eviction was in the hands

of the public, every contestant wanted to gain popularity and sympathy. So, it was assumed that the

fights and the depression depicted by Pooja was in a healthy spirit to gain sympathy in order to win

the show. It was very hard to anticipate the suicide as social media influencers and film stars do these

kind of controversies in order to become popular which in turn helps to build their career.

III. B That Criminal Liability cannot be attributed to Suman Shekar under Section 153-A of

the IPC.

III. B.1 Shekar himself did not make any comments on the show regarding any community.

(¶23.) Suman Shekar did not make any comments regarding any communities on the show.

III. B.2. The words which were telecasted by Shekar’s show do not refer to any two communities

either explicitly or implicitly.

(¶24.) In order to attract the provisions of Section 153-A, it is necessary that at least two groups or

communities should be involved.35 The words telecasted on Shekar’s show did not refer to any two

communities either explicitly or implicitly and were merely comments about Pooja’s habits and

behaviour on the show.

III.B.3. The words telecasted by Shekar’s show were not intended to cause any enmity or ill-will.

35 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1997] INSC 646 (6 August 1997)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
25

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

(¶25.). The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence

under Section 153 A IPC.36 The below stated words do not suggest any intention of Ankita or Shekar

in promoting enmity between two communities and clearly seem to be words which were said in the

course of the reality show in which the both Ankita and Pooja as participants were under a lot of

stress.37

“Pooja is a menace in this world and people like her don’t last long.”38

“I have had enough of Pooja’s blackmail and would soon get rid of her”39

“I will get rid of Pooja one way or other”.5

“I want to get rid of Pooja”.40

“Pooja, you aren’t worthy of anything. You are just a lucky, rich, spoilt girl who does not help with

the tasks and doesn’t even deserve good people and might as well die.”6

“Pooja is a mad girl, Karthik, you should focus on the finale instead of wasting your time on

pampering hybrid Pooja.” 41

III.B.4. The words telecasted by Shekar’s show could not cause any enmity between any communities

(¶26.) The effect of the words telecasted by Shekar words must be judged from the standards of

reasonable, strong- minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds,

nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.42 The words uttered by Ankita stated in

above paragraph would hardly incite any hatred or enmity in the mind of a reasonable, strong minded

person as it does not speak hatefully against any particular community.

(¶27.) In several cases concerning S. 153-A Courts held that in estimating the effect of a speech the

Court should look at any speech as a whole and not pay undue regard to any particular sentence or

36
Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
37
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 2-Paragraph 7
38
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 2-Paragraph 11
39
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 16
40
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 17
41
Case-Fact Sheet- Page 3-Paragraph 20
42
Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 Nagpur, Ramesh.S/O Chotalal Dalal vs Union Of India
& Ors 1988 AIR 775
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
26

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

phrase.43 The words should not be examined in isolation but should be seen with the context in which

they were uttered. Ankita and Pooja were competitors in a very stressful reality show and Ankita said

the above mentioned things out of frustration and anger at Pooja’s behaviour and they were not

capable causing hatred between communities.

43
Vishambhar Dayal Tripathi vs. Emperor : AIR 1941 Oudh 33, Sikkim Social Empowerment Association vs. Shri Anjan
Upadhyaya and Another S.B. Crl.A. No.13 of 2013

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


27

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:-

Acquit Ankita, Suman Sekar and Rohit Sippy of all charges.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: Andha Sd/-

Date: October, 2018 COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


28

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

ANNEXURES

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(U/s 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

Serial No. : X Book No. : Y

1. District: Andha P.S.Andha Year 2018 FIR No. 321/2018


Date: 09/08/18

2. (i) Act -Indian Penal Code Section- 306, 153A


(ii) Act- Information Technology Act Section- 84(b), 84(c)

3. Case filed against:


i Ankita
ii Rohit Sippy
iii Suman Shekar
4. (a) Occurrence of Offence: Day- ; Date from 08/08/18; Date to
08/08/18; Time: 02:00a.m.

5. Information recorded by: Sub-Inspector Virat Singh


6. Type of Information : Oral Complaint
7. Place of Occurrence :
(a) Direction and Distance from PS: About 2.5 km east from Police Station.. Beat No.
14A
(b) Address :Indira Nagar Metro Station, Indra Nagar, Punnai.
(c) In case outside the limit of Police Station, then
Name of PS - District -

8. Complainant/Informant
(a) Name: Mr. Vignesh S.
(b) Father’s/Husband’s Name: N.A.
(c) Date/Year of Birth -16/10/1982 (d) Nationality- Allogria/Andha
(e) Passport No. IB5032928 Date of Issue: 11.08.2007 Place of Issue: NA
(f) Occupation: Studio Incharge
(g) Address: N.A.
(h) Tel No.: No.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
29

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

9. Basis on which FIR is lodged: Oral Complaint by Mr. Vignesh


10. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars(Attach separate
sheet if necessary)-

S.No. Name Description


1 Ms. Ankita Female, Aged 23, D/o Mr. Bajaj Basu
2 Mr. Rohit Male, Aged 36, S/o Vikram Sippy
Sippy
3 Mr. Suman Male, Aged 44, S/o Karan Shekhar Singhaniya
Shekhar

11. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant- NA


12. Partculars of Injuries sustained: Internal Body Damage
13. Particulars of Post Mortem Report: Over Dosage on Melatonin along with
alcohol.
14. Post Mortem Report done by: Dr. Khan
15. Inquest Report/ U. D. case No., if any

16. Brief Facts of the case:

FIR Contents (Attach separate sheet, if necessary):-

The crime had taken place in the State of Maha. The deceased was a participant of the reality
show “Bazzi-Ghar” that had 10 participants in a closed house (under camera surveillance-
24*7) and is devoid of any communication to the outside world. Ms. Ankita (accused) was
found to have great hatred against Pooja; this was caught on camera through the constant
fights between them. Ankita, was upset that all her friends were getting eliminated from the
show because of the online polls that was being posted by Pooja on Speedogram. This led to
Ankita telling Pooja to die as she is useless. The deceased was so affected and posted a poll on
speedogram on whether she should die or not? 70% had voted her to die. Later on 08.08.2018,
Pooja was found dead in her room.
17. Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offence(s) U/s as
mentioned at Item No. 2): Vivek Dhayani, Rank: S.I. has taken up the Investigation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


30

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

18. FIR read over to the complainant/informant, admitted to be correctly


recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant, free of cost.

Sd/- Sd/-
Signature/ Thumb impression of Signature of Officer
Complainant/Informant Name: Virat Singh
Name: Vignesh. S Rank: SI
-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


31

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

PANCHNAMA/MAHAZAR

On August 8, 2018 at 4.00 am the investigating officer visited the crime scene in Maha, ‘Baazi-
Ghar’ house. After observing the place and taking statements, he prepared a sketch. The
following items were taken into possession in front of witnesses:

1. The Melatonin bottle

2. Red Sipper of the deceased (founded with traces of liquor)

3. Mobile Phone of the deceased

4. Poll readings conducted by the deceased

Mr. Anuj Mahajan and Mr. Aditya Sawhney, present on the scene and consented as
eyewitnesses and have attested the Panchnama.

Sd/-
Virat Singh
Investigating Officer

Witnesses:
Sd/- Sd/-
Mr. Anuj Mahajan Mr. Aditya Sawhney
R/o R/o

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


32

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

POST MORTEM REPORT

SIPPY MEMORIAL CITY HOSPITAL

PM No. 1 Date: 09.08.2018


1. Name of Deceased: Pooja S
2. Sex: Female
3. Age: 22
4. Height: 6 feet 1 inches, 182 cms
5. Weight: 65 kgs
6. Habits: Alcohol consumer
7. Home Address: # 14 Galaxy Apartments, PR Road, Maha 9
8. Date and time of death: Previous day before the Examination
9. Identification Marks: Mole on left lip
10. By: SI Virat Singh
11. Requisition Received On: August 8, 2018 at 9:00 PM
12. Clothes: White shirt and blue jeans
13. Pathological Diagnosis
Adult female suffered over dosage due to consumption of melatonin pills along
with liquor.
The following viscera were preserved and sealed for chemical analysis:
a. Skull and the brain;
b. Stomach and its contents;
c. Upper part of the small intestine (about 30 cm in length and its contents)
d. Liver not less than half kilogram;
e. One kidney or half of each;
f. 100ml blood; and
g. Heart.

14. External Examination: The body is that of an adult female measuring 182 cm and
weighing 65 kilograms. The body is athletic and consistent with the age of 26 years. The
scalp is round. The nose is long. The mouth and lips are red. The tongue is white and
long. Total no. of teeth present is 31 and is white. The ears are bilateral prominent.
Clothed with a white shirt and blue jeans and sneakers. Full rigor mortis. The scalp hair
is black/brown and long. The corneas are cloudy. The irises are grey. The mouth
contains natural teeth. The ears, nose and mouth show no abnormalities. The neck is of
normal configuration and there are no palpable masses. The extremities are symmetrical
and normally developed. Identifying marks include a birthmark on the left upper lip .

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


33

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

15. Evidence of Injury: At the time of the post mortem the stomach contents had high dosage
of melatonin with Alcohol present.

16. Internal Examination: The organs occupy normal positions, and all the internal organs
are in a state of autolysis. There are no adhesions or mass lesions.
Head and Neck: Brain weighs 1350 grams. Hemorrhaged
Cardiovascular System: The heart weighs 450 grams and is normal.
Respiratory System: The Right lung weighs 410 grams and left weighs 390 grams.
Digestive System and Liver: The stomach contains fresh food particles, which includes
The liver weighs 1600 grams. The gallbladder contains 9cc of bile. The pancreas is
otherwise unremarkable.
Genitourinary System; The right and left kidney weighs 150 and 170 grams respectively.
The calyces, pelvis and ureters are patent and unremarkable. The urinary bladder
contains approximately 786 cc of urine.
• The intestines are unremarkable and carry partially digested mater.
• The spinal cord is intact.
• There are no signs of decomposition.
• The viscera have been preserved.
Postmortem Concluded at: April 9, 2018 at 06.00 hours
Opinion: Death due to over dosage of melatonin along with liquor. Body organs removed were
sent for detailed examination.

Sd/-
Dr. Khan
Medical Officer.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


34

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

FORENSIC REPORT

Examinations Requested:

1. Skull and the brain


2. Stomach and its contents; Upper part of the small intestine (about 30 cm in length and its
contents);
3. Liver not less than half kilogram;
4. One kidney or half of each;
5. 100ml blood; and
6. Heart.

Examination of the Skull and Brain:


There are no distinct fresh injury marks on the skull

Examination of the Blood: High level of liquor has been detected along with high level of
toxins-Melatonin Pills.
Potassium level 6 mmol/l (millimoles per litre).

Conclusion:
Death due to consumption of melatonin pills and liquor.

Dr. Khan
Medical Officer (Pathologist)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


35

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC

DISTRICT: Andha POLICE STATION : Divison 3

FIR No: 321/2018

DATE : 09/08/2018

NAME : Ankita Singh

OCCUPATION : Artist

Statement as recorded:
My name is Ankita Singh and I am 23 years old. I am a contestant in Bazi-Ghar. Pooja was a
very arrogant and over pampered rich spoilt girl. She used to show-off her richness. But inside
the show it does not matter where you come from. Each and every participant has to help with
the household chores together. I was the house captain so I had assigned her the responsibility to
clean the washrooms but she intentionally woke up late that day and we had to clean it as we are
bound by timeframe and I had to ensure that the work was completed. She was very arrogant and
self-centered. Because of her tantrums nobody was her friend in the house. I wonder how she
came this far in the show despite her bad behavior.

Virat Singh
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)

Rank: S.I.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


36

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC

DISTRICT: Andha POLICE STATION : Divison 3

FIR No: 321/2018

DATE : 09/08/2018

NAME : Prithvi

OCCUPATION : Model

Statement as recorded:
My name is Prithvi and I am a model by profession I met Pooja at the sets of Bazi-Ghar for the
first time. Initially Pooja was nice. She talked to everybody but because of her short temper
everybody avoided her. I believe she preferred having friends of her standards. Her relations with
Ankita was especially not good. They often used to get into fights.

Virat Singh
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)

Rank: S.I.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


37

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC

DISTRICT: Andha POLICE STATION : Divison 3

FIR No: 321/2018

DATE : 09/08/2018

NAME : Suman Sekar

OCCUPATION : Producer

Statement as recorded:
My name is Suman Shekhar and I am producer of the show Bazi-ghar. I provide a platform to the
contestants so that they can boldly reveal their thoughts. They voluntarily give their consent for
such a format where even their personal life could be exposed.

Virat Singh
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)

Rank: S.I.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


38

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.PC

DISTRICT: Andha POLICE STATION : Divison 3

FIR No: 321/2018

DATE : 09/08/2018

NAME : Raju Shukla

OCCUPATION : Technical Assistant

Statement as recorded:
I am Raju Shukla. I handle the camera and mikes. If any fault or issue arises, I immediately send
a guy for repairing. I am also responsible for monitoring the activities of the participants. I saw
Pooja taking medicines along with sipper bottle inside the restroom area.

Virat Singh
Sd/-
(Investigating Officer)

Rank: S.I.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


39

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OFFICER U/S 173 OF THE CRPC

In the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maha


1. District: Andha, PS:Division 3, Year: 2018, FIR No. 321/2018 Date: 09.08.2018

2. Charge sheet No. 17/2018

3. Date: 11.08.2018

4. Acts/ Section(s) :Section 153A and Section 306 of IPC; Section 84B and Section 84 C of the
IT Act, 2000
a. Ankita S
b. Suman Shekar
c. Rohit Sippy
d. 10 people (who were identified) who had answered the poll.
5. Type of Charge sheet: Charge sheet against: (i) Ankita S (ii) Suman Shekar and (iii) Rohit
Sippy

6. Offence as mentioned did occur as per the contents of the FIR.

7. Original Charge sheet, supplementary to follow against the rest of the accused.

8. I.O.: Virat Singh : SI

9. Complainant: Mr. Vignesh. S

10. Date of properties/Articles/Documents Recovered/seized during investigation and relied


upon: Recovered vide Panchnama dated 08.08.2018.

11. Particulars of accused persons charge sheeted:


S.No Name of the Accused Status of the Accused
1. Ankita S In Custody

2. Suman Shekar In Custody

3. Rohit Sippy In Custody

12. FIR is not false.


13. Result of the forensic report attached.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
40

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

14. Brief facts of the case:

1. In the Union of Allogria is a Democratic Republic in South of Ragni, the people in the state
continues having a discussion of the mental health issue a taboo. The youth population had the
highest rate of suicide in the country. The statistics also shows youngsters were addicted to
smartphones and social media platforms like speedogram. The state of Maha has the highest
suicide rate in the Union of Allogoria, especially among the youth. Maha is also Allogoria’s
entertainment center; they run one of the most famous reality TV shows. One of the popular
show-Baazi-ghar has a wide audience span across the whole of Allogoria.
2. The reality TV show has 10 contestants living together for 10 weeks isolated from the outside
world. At the end of the week that is on Friday the housemates reveal the nominee for eviction
from the house. Then, the 2 housemates with the most number of votes were announced and the
viewers got to pick and evict through SMS one of the nominees.
3. One of the housemates was Pooja who was a wealthy heiress and was addicted to social media
especially speedogram with one million followers. She would frequently post videos of her
parties, beauty tips and photos of herself on vacation. Pooja had survived the first three weeks
and only 7 housemates including her were left. Pooja would lose her cool very easily and would
also shout at the other housemates. This quickly earned her the name of the “most hated person”.
She was also active on speedogram and take polls on which housemate she should evict. The
producers would telecast her speedogram usage on TV.
4. Ankita, another contestant at the house was the arch rival of Pooja and would constantly get
into fights. Pooja would always lose her temper. Pooja had posted a poll that she would be
nominating Ankita for eviction this coming Friday and this was telecasted on TV. Due to this,
Ankita was having an outburst and Pooja heard her telling “Haha, she is useless and she should
die.” As usual, Pooja went on speedo poll and typed “Haha, I am useless, should I die?” She got
a 100 replies and 70% said that she should die.
5. On 08.08.2018, Pooja had not left her room and at 11 AM, Karthik had found her with her
eyes open but her pulse absent with an empty bottle of melatonin and her red sipper having
traces of alcohol. Karthik immediately called the health service who declared her dead around 2
AM.
7. The police registered a case under Section 153A and Section 306 of IPC and section 84B and
84C of the IT Act. The police booked Ankita, Suman Shekar as the 1st defendant and Rohit
Sippy as the 2nd defendant and 10 people (who they were able to identify) who had answered
Pooja’s poll. The police filed a charge sheet in the Session Court and the magistrate committed
the case for trial.

Sd/- Sd/-
House Officer Investigating Officer

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


41

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT (A)

➢ ANKITA’S RED SIPPER BOTTLE

EXHIBIT (B)

➢ THE MELATONIN PILL BOTTLE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


42

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

EXHIBIT (C)

➢ POOJA’S MOBILE PHONE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


43

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

EXHIBIT (D)

➢ THE SPEEDO GRAM POLL AND RESULT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


44

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

EXHIBIT (E)

➢ THE EMOJIS USED ON THE POLL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


45

SURANA & SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 –WEST ROUNDS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE