Moot Memorial - Respondent - Case 1

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
ST. WILFRED’S COLLEGEOF LAW, PANVEL

GROUP CODE:
MOOT MEMORIAL – CASE 1 - 2022.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF JUDICATURE,

AT MUMBAI
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF2022.
IN THE MATTER OF
M (MALE) & M (MALE)’S FATHER …APPELLANT
Versus.
1. F (FEMALE)’S FATHER
2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
BY
Sr. No. Name Title

1 Abhinandan Brijvir Malik Speaker 1
2 Mayur Subhash Adhav Speaker 2
3 Devyani Ravindra Ranjane Researcher
lOMoARcPSD|16797008
St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022
TABLE OFCONTENTS
SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGENO.

1. Bibliography / Webliography 3
2. List of Abbreviations 4
3. Index of Authorities 5
4. Statement of Jurisdiction 6
5. Statement of Facts 7
6. Issues for Consideration 9
7. Summary of Arguments 10
8. Arguments Advanced 11 – 15
Whether the conviction under Sec.361 and Sec.366 by the 11–15
Sessions Court should be set aside?
1.1.Whether the ingredients of Sec.361 are met with to 11 – 13
Charge the accused with the same?
1.2.Whether the ingredients of Sec.366 are met with to 14 – 15
Constitute the offence under this section by the accused?
9. Prayer 16
10. Vakalatnama 17
11. Exhibit 18 – 22
12. List of Documents 23
13. Declaration 24
14. Synopsis
15. Docket 26
Memorial on behalf of Respondent 2

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPHY
Books Referred:
1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 32ndEdition.

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34thEdition.
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, Volume 2, and 31stEdition.
4. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 18th Edition.
5. Black’sLawDictionary, 9thEdition.
Statues Referred:
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Web Sources Referred:
1. www.manupatrafast.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in
4. www.indiankanoon.org
5. www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-prince-1875.php
6. www.devgan.in/crpc/chapter_38.php#s302-377

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULLFORM
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
LR Law Review
WR Weekly Review
Punj Punjab-Haryana
Cal Calcutta
Hon’ble Honourable
v. Versus

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
INDEXOFAUTHORITIES
Sr.No. CaseName Pageno.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION
The Hon’ble High Court enjoys the right to preside over this matter by virtue of Section
374(2) in Chapter XXIX of Appeals, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section374–Appeals from convictions.
(1) ----
(2) Any person convicted on a trial by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more
than seven years 1[has been passed against him or against any other person convicted
at the same trial]; may appeal to the High Court.
(3) ---
(a) ---
(b) ---
(c) ---.

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. M (Male) is a Muslim, 22-year-old Commerce Graduate residing at Room No. 250,

Lumbini Baug, Govandi, Mumbai – 400043. F (Female), is a Hindu, pursuing her
junior college studies and residing at residing at Room No. 249, Lumbini Baug,
Govandi, Mumbai – 400043. They are neighbours.
2. They developed a relationship of love and affection and wanted to marry each other.
The only impediment to this is was F (Female)’s Father who was against inter-
religious relationship and marriage.
3. They would meet clandestinely and M (Male) used to assure F (Female) of a married
life in the city once he got a job there. He also promised to convince her father, F
(Female)’s Father, for their marriage.
4. He, one day, tried to persuade her father but F (Female)’s Father did not accede to the
persuasion. M (Male) got a job in Pune and disappointed by the refusal, he shifts to
Pune for the same.
5. Twomonths later, he receivesa call from F (Female) wherein sheasks him to meet her
at the outskirts of Mumbai.
6. They meet and she shares her fear that her parents may force her to marry someone
else. They then proceed to a nearby bus stand and leave for Pune. While boarding, Fr
(Friend), F (female)’s Father’s friend, sees them.
7. Based on the information given by Fr (Friend), F (Female)’s Father filed a complaint
against M (Male).
8. Two days later, M (Male) and F (Female) are caught living together in a small room.
The police arrested M (Male) and booked him under Sec. 361 and Sec. 366 of the
IndianPenal Code, 1860.
9. Further they obtained the birth certificate of F (Female) from the Gram Panchayat
which indicated that she was seventeen years old.
The trial court convicted the appellant of both the charges. Aggrieved bythe same the appellant
has preferred this appeal.

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
ISSUESFORCONSIDERATION
Issue that is presented via this appeal before the Hon’ble Court of Session for discussion and
Adjudication is as follows:
Issue I
1. The accused is liable under Sec.361 and Sec.366 by the Court of Session?
1.1. Whether the ingredients of Sec.361 are met with to constitute the offence under this
section by the accused?
Section by the accused?

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS
Issue 1:
WhethertheorderofconvictionunderSec.361andSec.366bytheSessionsCourt should be set

aside?
Theanswertotheabovequestionisanimpregnable positive.
1.1. WhethertheingredientsofSec.361aremetwithto constitutetheoffenceunderthis

section by the appellant?
„Taking‟or„enticing‟aminor„outofthekeepingofthelawful guardian‟ constitutethe
ingredients of this section. However, it is most humbly submitted that, these ingredients
havenotbeenmetwithastheappellanthasnotinducedtheminortoleavethekeepingof her lawful
guardian. She has done so out of her own accord. Furthermore, merely accompanying a
minor does not amount to kidnapping. Also, the ambit of the words
„keepingofthelawfulguardian‟istobeconstruedinsuchawaywhereinthecontrolof the
guardian over the minor must be compatible with the independence of the same.
Therefore,theappellantisnotliablefortheoffenceunderSection361oftheIndianPenal Code,
1860.
section by the appellant?
The existence of intent in the mind of the accused to force or compel the woman to
indulge in the activities mentioned in the section is of the utmost importance to constitute
an offenceunderthesame. In thematter at hand, this intent in themind oftheappellant is
absent from the veryoutset. Furthermore, as stated above, the accused has not committed
the offence of kidnapping, which is another essential ingredient that has not been met
with. Therefore, the appellant is not liable for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
ARGUMENTSADVANCED
IssueI
Whether the convictionunder Sec.361 and Sec.366 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 bythe
Sessions Court should be set aside?
Theanswertotheabovequestionisanimpregnable positive.
1.1. WhethertheingredientsofSec.361aremetwithto constitutetheoffenceunderthissection

by the appellant?
AimandObjectiveofSec.361
1.1.1. The object of this section is to protect children of tender age from being abducted or
seduced for improper purposes, as well as for the protection of the rights of parents
and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of minors or insane persons. 2 The
mischief intended to be punished by this section partly consists of violation or
infringementofthe guardians‟rightstokeep theirwardsundertheircareandcustody; but
the more important object of this provision is undoubtedly to afford security and
protection to the ward themselves.3
1.1.2. Thereare fouressentialsthatmust bemet with-
a. Takingorenticingawayaminororapersonofunsoundmind.
b. Such minor or person of unsound mind, if male, must be under 16 years of age;
and if female, under 18 years of age.
c. The takingor enticingmust be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such
minor or person of unsound mind.
d. Suchtakingor enticingmust bewithouttheconsent ofthe guardian.
1.1.3. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages
specified under this section, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the
consent ofsuch guardian. Thewords “takeor enticeanyminor.out ofthe keepingofthe
lawful guardian of such minor” are significant. The use of the word “keeping”

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; the guardians‟
chargeandcontrolappearstobecompatiblewiththeindependenceofactionand
movement in the minor, the guardian’s charge and control of the minor being
available whenever necessity arises.4 Thus this relation between the minor and the
guardian certainly does not dissolve so long as the minor, can at will take advantage
of it and place herself within the sphere of its operation.
1.1.4. Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that, „keeping of the lawful guardian‟ must be
strictly interpreted, so as to not only fulfil the purpose and objective of this provision
but also, safeguard the independence of the one that is brought within the scope of the
same. The factors governing the aforementioned independence however, are
multifarious as well as subjective. They take face of what is acceptable and necessary
at that time, in that contemporary society.
Ambit of ‘taking or enticing ... out of the keeping of the lawful guardian’ underSection
361.
1.1.5. The law assumes that in the Indian context the true interest of the minor and that of
the parent/guardian concur. That is the basic plank of parental (guardians‟) authority
and right. It must however be considered that, there is a distinction between “taking”
and allowing a minor to accompany a person.5 The two expressions are not
synonymous and it is pertinent to note that in no conceivable circumstance can the
two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purpose of Section 361 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1.1.6. Where a minor girl alleged to have been taken by the accused person, left her father‟s
protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was
doing voluntarily joins the accused person; in such a case the accused cannot be said
to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has
to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the
accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of
the minor to leave the house of the guardian.6
1.1.7. It is most humbly submitted that, in the matter at hand, the appellant and Falguni
overtime developed a relationship of love and affection and wanted to marry each
other. The appellant used to assure her of a married life in the city after he gets a job

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

there. Pursuant to this, he promised Falguni that he shall convince her father to
allowthem to get married to each other. Following up on the same, he attempted to
persuade her father; however, her father absolutely refused to accede to that
persuasion. Disappointed by the refusal, when the appellant received a job
opportunity, he availed it and shifted to Pune for the same.
The act of the appellant of moving to Pune after a blatant refusal of permission to
marry by the father of Falguni, is evident of the conclusion of those assurances made,
of a married life in the cities. Moreover, that lack of indication of any sort of
communication between Hasan and Falguni in the interim period of two months
before she called him, further fortifies the end of his assurances that were made in the
formative stage of their relationship.
1.1.8. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the appellant was in no way directly or
actively involved in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of
the guardian and meet him at the outskirts of Baramati. The minor had called the
appellant herself and asked him to meet her there. No other information was divulged
into and therefore the absence of the appellant’s intention to influence her to leave her
lawful guardian is evident. After Falguni shared her fear of the possibility of her
parents forcing her to marry someone else, they were spotted boarding a bus.
1.1.9. Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 speaks of Consent. This section does not
define „consent‟ but describes what is not „consent‟7. Consent is an act of reason,
accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil
on each side.8 Consent means an active will in the mind of a person to permit the
doing of the act complained of, and knowledge of what is to be done, or of the nature
of the act that is being done, is essential to consent to an act.9
1.1.10. The Supreme Court in S.Varadrajan v. State of Madras10had come to the positive
conclusion that the minor had gone out of the keeping of her guardian voluntarily and
the appellant had no role whatsoever in such minor walking out of the keeping of the
guardian, similar of which is the case herein. A person who allows such a minor, who
is already out of the keeping of her guardian, to accompany him commits no offence
under Section 361.
1.1.11. The word “take” implies want of wish and absence of desire of the person taken.
Thus, where the prosecutrix leaves her father’s house out of her free will and the

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

appellant does not go to her house, does not persuade her and bring her from there
nokidnapping takes place and the accused cannot be convicted. 11 There is a distinction
between taking and allowing a minor to accompany a person. In the matter at hand,
whether the appellant has taken the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian
cannot be ascertained as, the events that transpired between the appellant and the
minor after she shared her fear are vague and unclear.
1.1.12. In Debprosad v. King12it was held that after the minor left the custody of the guardian
and joined the accused, it was not clear whether the allurement to run first came from
the side of the accused or the minor. In such a case, it is submitted that there is no
kidnapping, for taking and allowing a minor to accompany are not the same thing.
This principle was further reiterated and upheld by the Apex Court in S.Varadrajan v.
State of Madras13. In the matter at hand, it is absolutely unclear as to, from whom the
allurement first came, hence, this ambiguity does not prove the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt.
1.1.13. As stated above, it is most humbly submitted that, the minor had gone out of the
custody of her father and later met with the appellant. Up until the point of meeting,
there is no indication of an intention, on part of the appellant to lure her out of the
keeping of the lawful guardian. The minor herself, had called the appellant at the
outskirts of Baramati to meet her. Further, in the present case, prior to the minor
leaving her leaving the guardian, there was no blandishment on part of the appellant.
1.1.14. It is most humbly submitted that, the appellant could not have anticipated the conduct
of the minor leaving the keeping of the lawful guardian when they met. Also,
boarding a bus together does not in any way indicate towards an act of active
inducement on part of the appellant. Mere accompaniment does not amount to an
offence under this provision. The appellant was under no legal obligation to return the
minor to her lawful guardian.
1.1.15. If evidence to establish a passive form of inducement or a direct action is lacking,
then it would not be legitimate to infer that the appellant is guilty of taking her out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian. Merely because after she left the house of her
lawful guardian, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to
return to her guardian‟s house by taking her along with him place to place; no doubt
the part played for by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfilment ofthe

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

intention of the girl, it however, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out
of the keeping of her lawful guardian, and therefore is, not tantamount totaking‟. 14 It
is most humbly submitted that, as stated earlier, the assurance of a married life in the
city ended with the refusal of the father to grant permission, the appellant leaving for
Pune after the same and the lack of an indication of any communication between the
appellant and the minor for the next two months.
1.1.16. The words „taking‟ and „enticing‟ evidently have two different connotations. But
neither of the expressions attracts the case when the girl of her own accord comes out
of the custody of her guardian.15 Hence it is most humbly submitted that, the
requisites to constitute an offence under this section have not been met with and
therefore, the appellant must not be held liable for the same.
1.2. Whether the ingredients of Sec.366 are met with to constitute the offence under
thissection by the appellant?
ScopeofSection366
1.2.1. Section 366 is an aggravated form of the offence under Section 363 which states the
punishment for the offence under Section 361. If a person kidnaps a minor girl with
the intention that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled, to marry any person against her will, the appellant maybe punished under
this section. One of the basic conditions for the applicability of this section is that the
personchargedmusthavecommitted an offence of kidnapping as defined in section
363. It is therefore most humbly submitted and as is held in Isree pandey17,
theoffenceunder this section is merely an aggravated form of the offence under
Section 363 andthe same person cannot be convicted on the same facts under both the
sections.
1.2.2. Furthermore, as stated in the former half of the submission, the appellant has not in any way
committed the offence of kidnapping. The minor met the appellant at the outskirts of
Baramati out of her own free will. The necessary ingredient of enticement on part of the
appellant was also not met with since his assurances must be deemed to have been concluded
when he moved to Pune which was further substantiated withthe lack of an indication of any
communication between the appellant and the girl. Furthermore, the ambiguity in determining
the allurement to board the bus on eitherof the person‟s behalf does not prove the guilt of the

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

appellant beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the offence.
1.2.3. Anintentiontoseduce subsequentto theelopementisanessentialpartofthisoffence. It has
also been held that this section did not apply to a case in which a minor girl at the
time of kidnapping from lawful guardian intended to co-habit of her own free will
with the kidnapper. It applied where she was compelled to marry a person against her
will or where she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.18
1.2.4. The essential ingredient of the offence under this section is that a person who kidnaps
any girl should do so for the intent specified in the section. To bring home an offence
under this section the prosecution must prove:
a. Thattheaccusedkidnappedorabducted thewoman(as thecasemaybe)

b. That the accused during the kidnapping or abduction had the intention or knew it
likely that –
i. Such woman might or would be forced to marry a person against her will,
or
ii. Thatshemightorwouldbeforcedorseducedtoillicitintercourse,or
iii. By means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by inducing a woman togo
from any place with intent that she may be or knowing that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
Scopeof ‘Withintentthatshe maybecompelled...etc.’
1.2.5. The intention of the appellant is the basis and the foundation of an offence under this
section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the appellant determine the
offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the appellant kidnapped or
abducted the woman, and the intent of the appellant is the vital question for
determination in each case.
1.2.6. Intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and the
subsequentconductofthe appellant afterthekidnappingorabductionhastakenplace. Where the
girl was not taken by the appellant for the purpose of compelling her to marry him against her
will but she wanted to marry him at that stage, andneither theappellant seduced her to illicit
intercourse, he could not be held guilty under this section. 19 This section makes use of the
words “compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled”. If, therefore, a
woman is not compelled to do the acts specified in the section no offence is committed. 20
1.2.7. It is most humbly submitted that, in the matter at hand, the minor has not, at anystage,

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

been compelled or forced by the appellant to indulge into any of the activities that are
imperative to constitute an offence under this section.
1.2.8. The law is well-settled that if a minor girl below 18 out of her own accord abandons
her lawful guardian and joins the accused, who allows her to accompany him and
commit sexual intercourse with her consensually, no offence u/s. 363 or 366, of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out.21
1.2.9. The Supreme Court decisions in S. Varadrajan v. State of Madras22and T. D.
Vadgama v. State of Delhi23were relied on by Delhi High Court in a case where the
prosecutrix ontherelevanttimewas agirlsof17-½ yearsand sheleftthehouseofher parents
voluntarily; met the accused in the street and went with him to a different place.
The Delhi High Court observed that the conviction of the accused u/s. 366, of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not legally sustainable24. Where a girl under 18 years of
age is taken away from the keeping of her father by the accused with the object of
marriage or seduction he is guilty of an offence under this section, notwithstandingthe
fact that the girl accompanied the accused out of her own free will and not as a result
of force or misrepresentation.25 Mere kidnapping or abduction does not make out an
offence under Section 366 of the Code.
1.2.10. It must further be proved that the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman for any
of the purposes mentioned in this section. 26 Before a person can be convicted of an
offence under the first part of this section, the Court must be satisfied as a matter of
fact upon evidence that the accused when he kidnapped or abducted the woman
(asthecasemaybe)didsowithintenttocompelherorknowingittobelikelythatshewould be
compelled to marry against her will, that is to say, in spite of her opposition and unless such
an intent is proved, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 27
1.2.11. Therefore to conclude, it is most humbly submitted that, from the abovementioned
averments it is abundantly clear that the appellant, firstly, has not committed the
offence u/s. 361 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as he has not kidnapped the minor or
taken or enticed her out of the keeping of the lawful guardian and hence,
subsequently, he cannot be held liable for the offence u/s. 366 and that there was no
intent on the part of the appellant to force or compel the girl to indulge in the
activities listed therein to constitute the offence.

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the factual matrix, issues presented for adjudication,
contentions raised and authorities relied upon, it is most humbly prayed, that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;
1. Allow the appeal.

2. Set aside the conviction by the Sessions Court and acquit the appellant of all charges.
And/or pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the interest of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience, for which the Appellant, shall in duty bound, forever
pray.
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Sg / Dt:

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
VAKALATNAMA
(I / am/ we/ are not a member of the welfare fund. Therefore, stamps of Rs. 10 is/ are affixed here with
(N.N.) Strike out which is not applicable)
IN THE HONOURABLE SESSION JUDGE COURT AT MUMBAI

40th COURT, AT SESSION MUMBAI.
C.R. No.
Criminal Case No. Of
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Applicant
Q’s FATHER Original Applicant
V/s.
MALE Respondent
I / We are Applicant above named do hereby appoint and authorize Adv Praful M. Chavan, Adv
Harshvardhan U. Zende, Advocates, High Court Mumbai to appear act plead for me / us in above case.
Dated this day of 2022

Accepted
Signature
Registration No. & Date
MAH-####/####
Abhinandan Malik, Mayur Adhav, Devyani Ranjane
Buddhanagar No.02,
P.Y.Thorat Marg,

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

Govandi, Mumbai – 400043

C.R. No.
V/s.
MALE Respondent
EXHIBIT
SR.N Exh. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

O. No.
1 A Aadhar card of Victim and Respondent 20
2 B Age proof of Victim and Respondent 21
3 C Prist certificate of Victim and Respondent 22
4 D Photograph of Marriage of P and Q 23

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
Place – Mumbai Applicant

Date –
Exhibit A
Aadhar Card of Aadhar Card of

Respondent Victim

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
Exhibit B
Age Proof of Victim and Respondent
Exhibit C

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
Exhibit C
Prist certificate of Victim and Respondent

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
Exhibit D
Photograph of Marriage of P and Q

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

C.R. No.
V/s.
MALE Respondent
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Aadhar card of Victim and Respondent

2. Age Proof of Victim and Respondent
3. Prist Certificate of Victim and Respondent
4. Photograph of Marriage of P and Q

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

5. Any other documents with the permission of the Hon’ble Court.
Applicant

C.R. No.
V/s.
MALE Respondent
SYNOPSIS
1. C.R. Number :
2. Name of Police Station : Deonar Police Station
3. Date of F.I.R. : xxx
4. Date of Incident :xxx
5. Offence under Section : 361, 366 of IPC
6. Date of Arrest :xxxx
7. Date of Magistrate’s Custody :xxxxx

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
8. Date of Judicial Custody :xxxxx
9. Earliar Bail Application, If any : Yes or No
10. Total Number of Accused in the involved :xxx

in the case
Advocate for the Respondent
DECLARATION
I, MR. Q’s Father, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai residing at, Room No. 249, Lumbini Baug, Govandi,
Mumbai – 400043, the petitioner does hereby solemnly affirm and declare that whatever stated in the
foregoing paragraphs are true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly declared at Mumbai )
This ______ day of April 2022 ) Respondent
Explained &Identified by me:
Mr/Ms. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Advocate High Court

lOMoARcPSD|16797008
IN THE SESSION COURT AT, MUMBAI
CRIMINAL CASE NO. OF 2022
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…Applicant
Q’s Father … Original Applicant
V/s
Male (P) ... Respondent
PETITION FOR UNDER SECTION IPC 361

AND 366,
On this................ .day of 2022.
ADV. XXXX XXXXXXXX
Advocate for Respondent
Office: Buddha Nagar No.2, Chawl No. 5,

Near Metro Tailor, Govandi, Mumbai- 400043
Mob No. XXXXXXXXXX
Mail: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

Moot Memorial - Respondent - Case 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial - Respondent - Case 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial - Respondent - Case 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|16797008

ST. WILFRED’S COLLEGEOF LAW, PANVEL

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF JUDICATURE,

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF2022.

M (MALE) & M (MALE)’S FATHER …APPELLANT

2. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Sr. No. Name Title

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

SR.NO. PARTICULARS PAGENO.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 2

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 32ndEdition.

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Web Sources Referred:

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 3

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 4

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Sr.No. CaseName Pageno.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 5

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Section374–Appeals from convictions.

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 6

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

1. M (Male) is a Muslim, 22-year-old Commerce Graduate residing at Room No. 250,

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 7

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 8

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

WhethertheorderofconvictionunderSec.361andSec.366bytheSessionsCourt should be set

1.1. WhethertheingredientsofSec.361aremetwithto constitutetheoffenceunderthis

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 9

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

1.1. WhethertheingredientsofSec.361aremetwithto constitutetheoffenceunderthissection

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 10

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 11

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 12

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 13

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 14

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

a. Thattheaccusedkidnappedorabducted thewoman(as thecasemaybe)

Scopeof ‘Withintentthatshe maybecompelled...etc.’

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 15

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 16

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 17

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022

1. Allow the appeal.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Memorial on behalf of Respondent 18

St. Wilfred’s College of Law, Panvel. Moot Memorial – Case 1 – 2022