ZXVZBC

1
ST
DBRANLU 1 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIRES OF SECTION 29 AND SECTION 30 OF THE

POCSO ACT, 2012
MR. RAMBO..........................PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDIA.....................RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
3
ST
__________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__________________________________
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.........................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS.......................................
PRAYER......................................................
[Type text]
4
ST
__________________________________
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
__________________________________
Cr. Misc. : Criminal Miscellaneous
A.I.R. : All India Report
Del. : Delhi
I.C. : Indian Cases
r/w : Read with
S.C. : Supreme Court
Art. : Article
V. : Versus
u/s : Under Section
Sec. : Section
[Type text]
5
ST
__________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
__________________________________
INDIAN CASE LAWS::

Shailesh Kumar vs The State of Bihar, Patna High Court Cr. Misc.
No. 33693 of 2016
Navin Dhaniram Baraiye (in jail) vs State of Maharashtra on
25.06.2018
State vs Tej Kumar @ Tinku on 4.3.2014
Ram Prasad s/o Fagulal Amdari vs State of Maharashtra on 27.06.2018
Sadhu s/o Motilal Turra (in jail) vs State of Maharashtra on
27.06.2018
State vs Mohd. Zahid on 09.10.2013
State vs Lakshmi Kant Tiwari on 22.05.2014
Rajudan Gemardan Charan vs Stae of Maharashtra on 19.07.2019
STATUTES::
POCSO Act, 2012..............................................passim
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.........................passim
Indian Penal Code, 1860......................................passim
[Type text]
6
ST
__________________________________
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to hear the
instant matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Article 32 of the Constitution of India reads as:
Art. 32 :: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings

for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is
guaranteed.
2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.
3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court
by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other
court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction
all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under
clause(2).
4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
[Type text]
7
ST
__________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
__________________________________
1. On 12.01.2018 Chintu a boy aged 11 years, made an allegation of sexual

abuse against his tutor Mr. Rambo ( India citizen ) who used to take his
private classes for Mathematics.
2. On 12.01.2018,upon returning from his tuition, Chintu who was then

crying loudly alleged that between 6:00 - 7:00 pm Mr. Rambo had inserted a
pencil in his anus. The said allegation was narrated by Chintu to his
parents. Upon hearing of the said incident, Chintu's parents rushed to Mr.
Rambo's house situated 300 mts from their residence. Upon arriving at Mr.
Rambo's house, they discovered that he was putting away a blackboard
containing some Mathematics problems. Thereafter, Chintu's parents started
thrashing Mr. Rambo. Upon hearing the commotion, police arrived at the
scene of crime and took away Mr. Rambo, Chintu's parents and Chintu to the
Police Station.
3. Thereafter the Police recorded the statements of Chintu's parents, Mr.

Hari and Mr. Raja ( who had seen Chintu leave Mr. Rambo's house crying and
Chintu. Thereafter on the same day an FIR was registered against Mr. Rambo
under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act,
2012 [ ''POCSO, 2012'' ] and Section 377 r/w Section 511 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 [ ''IPC, 1860'' ] and Mr. Rambo was taken into custody and
has since been in jail.
4. Thereafter, Chintu's medical examination was conducted at SUPERMAN

MEDICAL HOSPITAL. Upon Cintu's medical examination the doctor issued a
Medicolegal Certificate being MLC no. 98765/18 wherein he noted ''THERE ARE
NO SIGNS WHICH SUGGESTS INSERTION OF PENIS OR PENIS LIKE OBJECT INTO ANAL
CAVITY, CERTAIN REDDISHNESS OBSERVED AROUND THE ANAL CAVITY''.
5. The Prosecuting Agency conducted an investigation and recorded

statements of Chintu, his mother, father, Mr. Raja and Mr. Hari under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( ''CrPC, 1973'' .
Further Chintu's statement under Section 164 of CrPC, 1973 was recorded
wherein he narrated the abovementioned incident. Thereafter Charge sheet.
( Final Report under Section 173 of CrPC, 1973 ) dated
[Type text]
13
ST
10.03.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 377 and Section 511 of
the IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was filed in the Court of the
Ld. Additional Session Judge, Delhi ( ''LD. ASJ'' .
6. The Ld. ASJ was pleased to take cognizance of the offences as alleged
within the said Final Report. Mr. Rambo pleaded not guilty and the Ld. ASJ
proceeded to frame charges against Mr. Rambo under Section 6 read with
Section 5 of the POCSO, 2012 and under Section 377 and Section 511 of the
IPC.
7. Mr. Rambo filed a bail application along with an application requesting

the Processing Agency to conduct the Polygraph/Narco-analysis/ Brain
Mapping Test in order to rebut the presumption against himself. The Ld. ASJ
relying upon Section 29 read with Section 30 of POCSO, 2012 rejected the
bail application filed by Mr. Rambo. The Ld. ASJ dismissed the application
under Section 173(8 CrPC, 1973 seeking that his Polygraph/Narco-
analysis/Brain Mapping Test be conducted stating that the same was
inadmissible.
8. During the trial, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses namely.
PW 1 Chintu's mother ( narrated that Chintu, came home crying and narrated
the alleged incident ), PW 2 Chintu's father ( narrated that Chintu came
home crying and narrated the alleged incident ), PW 3 Chintu ( narrated the
alleged incident ), PW 4 Hari ( narrated that Chintu left home crying ) ,PW
5 Raja ( narrated that Chintu left home crying ), PW 6 the Doctor (
exhibited the Medicolegal Report ) and PW 7 the Investigating Officer (
narrated the entire process of investigation and exhibited all arrest
memos, seizure memos, site plan etc ) was recorded. It may be noted, that
since Chintu was in the private tuition, only he narrated the alleged
incident in his evidence, all the other witnesses only arrested to his
conduct upon him leaving Mr. Rambo's house.
9. During cross-examination, Chintu narrated that he had failed to do his

homework as given by Mr. Rambo on 11.01.2018. Chintu's parents denied
having any altercation with Mr. Rambo regarding fees. The fees register
seized during the investigation from Mr. Rambo's house indicates that
Chintu's parents have not paid fees for the last five months.
10. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973, Mr. Rambo stated
that he did not do the alleged act, and that he had been falsely accused of
the said offence on account of the altercation between Mr. Rambo and
Chintu's parents regarding his fees, and that he had slapped Chintu as he
had not done the homework given to him on 11.01.2018.
[Type text]
14
ST
[Type text]
15
ST
11. Thereafter realizing that on account of the presumption under Section
29 read with Section 30 it would be impossible to prove the negative that
the alleged act had never taken place, Mr. Rambo approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to
allow him to conduct a Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain Mapping Test in order
to prove his innocence.
12. On the first date of hearing i.e. 18.02.2019 notice was issued to the
Union of India and eight week time was granted for completion of pleadings.
Pursuant to the completion of pleadings on 20.04.2019 parties were heard by
the Hon'ble Court and the matter is put up for final arguments from
03.09.2019 to 05.09.2019. Further, the parties are required to provide
written submission in support of their, arguments on the following issues
[Type text]
16
ST
__________________________________
ISSUES
a) Whether Section 29 and Section 30 if the POCSO,2012 are

in violation of fundamental rights if Mr. Rambo?
b) Io alterative whether Mr. Rambo can be permitted to

conduct a voluntary Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain Mapping
Test in order to prove his innocence?
[Type text]
17
ST
__________________________________
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
__________________________________
ISSUE 1:
a) Whether Section 29 and Section 30 if the POSCO,2012

are in violation of fundamental rights if Mr. Rambo ?
It is seen that the application of Sec. 29 and Sec. 30 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter
''POCSO"] is less than satisfactory.
Under sec. 29 when a person is charger under the POCSO, he is

presumed to have committed the offence. Similarly sec. 30 presumes
that a person charged under the Act had the culpable mental state
necessary to commit the offence. While these presumptions can go a
long way in simplifying the burden of the prosecution.
One of the reasons for this, I believe, is the lack of guidance

provided by the higher judiciary in their interpretation. This lack
of guidance then allows a number of other factors to prevent a
meaningful application of the presumptions. These include an
entrenched beliefs in tenets of criminal law, or the effect of
patriarchy in Court.
In the above mentioned facts, Mr. Rambo seeks remedy under article 32
to the Constitution of India, article 32 provides a guaranteed
remedy, in the form of Fundamental Right itself, for the enforcement
of other Fundamental Rights. The Right to Equality ( embodied in
Articles 14-18 is
[Type text]
19
ST
infringed of Mr. Rambo as he is presumed to have committed the
offence under Sec. 29 of POCSO Act. An individual can't said to be a
offender until the allegations are proved against him and without any
prior Medicolegal Certificate can't be of culpable mental state or of
sound mind necessary to commit the offence.
Section 29 reads as follows,

''Where a person is prosecuted for committing or
abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections
3, 5, 7 and 9 of this act, the Special Court shall presume,
that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to
commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary
is proved.''
Section 30 reads as follows,

''In any prosecution for any offence under this act which
requires a culpable mental state on the part of the
accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of
such mental state but it shall be a defense for the accused
to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with
respect to the act charged as an offence in that
prosecution.''
Culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact

and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
[Type text]
20
ST
ISSUE 2:
b) Io alterative whether Mr. Rambo can be permitted to

conduct a voluntary Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain
Mapping Test in order to prove his innocence?
The tests such as narco analysis, polygraph, brain mapping are

helpful to investigators in detecting the lies and finally, increase
the efficiency of the Investigation. It is ardently claimed by
investigation agency that no doubt all the information received from
the accused can't be used by them as evidence in the court but still
it is a better way to extract information rather than using ''Third-
degree methods''.
The apex court overruled various high court judgments and decided
that use of narco analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping test
violated subject's right against self-incrimination in contravention
to Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution. The article states that ''
No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself ''.
As in the above mentioned facts, the statement made by Chintu and

others in incriminating in nature and can be considered as character
assassinating. Mr. Rambo can ask and might be permitted for
Polygraph/Narco-analysis/Brain Mapping Test under proper precautions.
A undertaking can also be signed and Mr. Rambo shall be very well
aware about the Drawbacks to Narco Test etc. but sometimes it also
causes mental assault by having unregulated access to sheer private
information of the person.
Thus, if the test is carried out by voluntarily given consent if the

subject to that test then it can be used as evidence in Court.
[Type text]
21
ST
__________________________________
PRAYER
__________________________________
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, may this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
pass the order that it deems it in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Appellants as in duty bound, shall humbly

pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Petitioners)
[Type text]

ZXVZBC

Uploaded by

ZXVZBC

Uploaded by

1

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

VIRES OF SECTION 29 AND SECTION 30 OF THE

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

A.I.R. : All India Report

I.C. : Indian Cases

r/w : Read with

S.C. : Supreme Court

u/s : Under Section

INDIAN CASE LAWS::

Article 32 of the Constitution of India reads as:

Art. 32 :: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings

1. On 12.01.2018 Chintu a boy aged 11 years, made an allegation of sexual

2. On 12.01.2018,upon returning from his tuition, Chintu who was then

3. Thereafter the Police recorded the statements of Chintu's parents, Mr.

4. Thereafter, Chintu's medical examination was conducted at SUPERMAN

5. The Prosecuting Agency conducted an investigation and recorded

7. Mr. Rambo filed a bail application along with an application requesting

9. During cross-examination, Chintu narrated that he had failed to do his

a) Whether Section 29 and Section 30 if the POCSO,2012 are

b) Io alterative whether Mr. Rambo can be permitted to

a) Whether Section 29 and Section 30 if the POSCO,2012

It is seen that the application of Sec. 29 and Sec. 30 of the

Under sec. 29 when a person is charger under the POCSO, he is

One of the reasons for this, I believe, is the lack of guidance

Section 29 reads as follows,

Section 30 reads as follows,

Culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact

b) Io alterative whether Mr. Rambo can be permitted to

The tests such as narco analysis, polygraph, brain mapping are

As in the above mentioned facts, the statement made by Chintu and

Thus, if the test is carried out by voluntarily given consent if the

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

And for this, the Appellants as in duty bound, shall humbly

(Counsel for the Petitioners)

You might also like