Moot Problem – 1

Vidula is a country whose laws are in Pari Materia with the laws of India.
The Constitution of Vidula, like the Indian constitution, emphasises among other things
the need to protect women and children and allows for the making of special laws this
purpose.

In 2012, noting the increasing crime amongst youth, the need to protect vulnerable youth
and the increasing maturity levels amongst teenagers in Vidula, the government of
Vidula enacted a new legislation, with the dual purpose of protecting children in need of
care and to deal with children in conflict with the law.

Amar, Akbar, Anthony and Surjeet have grown up in tough conditions in the Pluto district
of South Vidula.
While Amar and Anthony have never known their fathers, Akbar comes from an abusive
household, where he was always beaten up by a drunken father.
Surjeet is an orphan who has grown up on the streets, fighting for each meal since the
day he was 4, when he was abandoned by his parents.
He was in and out of a few orphanages till the age of 10, after which he lived only off the
streets.
In their early teens, the four boys met at a local playground and an instant friendship was
struck among them.
Initially they would play together, football being the game of choice at the local Maidan.
Soon, they began spending more time together. Slowly but surely, they were led astray.
They began consuming alcohol and slowly moved on to cheap drugs.

In 2013, by the time they were 14, they were a notorious gang who committed several petty
offences in order to fund their drug habit.
They were infamously known as the “bacha gang”.
They mainly focused on shop lifting, pick pocketing, stealing petrol, cycles and footwear
from outside religious places, etc.
Although the police had caught them a few times, they were never arrested and were
always let free, primarily owing to their age.
The police did maintain a roster of known offenders and as such, the names of the four
boys had been entered on this roster as petty thieves in the Pradesh Police station in
Pluto.
In Early 2012, the “Baccha Gang” befriended and included within their fold, a 12-year-old
boy by the name of Sam. Sam came from a middle-class family.
His parents had recently divorced and he was a disturbed child looking for a sense of
belonging and family.
He immediately took a liking the four members of the gang who treated him like a
younger brother.
Initially, Sam had no idea that the gang involved itself in criminal activity.
He could be found playing with the four boys in the Maidan, and spending the entire day
with them.

He stopped going to school and would spend the whole day with them at times.
They would sometimes ask him for money, which he would steal from his mother’s purse
and give them.
Sometimes, they made him carry strange looking paper bags in his school bag. They even
taught him how to smoke and drink.
By June 2012, Sam had realized the full extent of the gang’s activities and was not
comfortable being with them.
He slowly and surely started distancing himself from the gang with the hope that he
could soon be rid of them altogether.

He began focusing on school, attending school every day and sports. By August of 2015,
he rarely saw the bacha gang.
This did not go well with Amar, the eldest of the four boys.
He told the rest of them that they needed to make sure Sam learnt a lesson and mended
his ways.
On the night of the 5th of January 2013, at around 7 PM, the bacha gang met Sam at Kila
laal tea stall.
After a brief talk they all left, going towards the woods that were on the outskirts of Pluto.

On the Morning of 6th, Sam’s mother, along with her father, approached the Pradesh
Police to file a report about a missing person.
They said that Sam had left home around 5 in the evening and had not yet returned.
The police launched a manhunt and after 2 days the body of Sam was found in the woods
surrounding Pluto.
An autopsy revealed that he had died of severe injury to the head, primarily the result of
blunt force trauma caused by repeated beating with a hard-blunt object on the skull.
His entire face was badly disfigured and the body was identified by clothes and a school
ID in the pant pocket.
The Autopsy also showed signs of a struggle, several bruises on the body, foot mark
shaped bruises, internal haemorrhage and blood loss.
Forensic experts were able to recover a stone near the spot where the body was found with
blood and tissue that matched Sam.
Sam would have been thirteen on the 10th of January. The brutal murder was picked up
by the media and created mass hysteria and outrage.
People were calling for the culprits to be caught and brought to book as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, no evidence was found, no suspects were arrested and the matter cooled
down. On June 21st, 2015, Amar was arrested on charge of robbery. During a search that
followed, a notebook belonging to Sam and a few photos of Sam and his family were
recovered from his residence.

Finding this sufficient to question him as a suspect for the murder of Sam, the Police
began a hard line of questioning.
It came to fore that, on the night of the murder, the bacha gang were the last to see Sam
and they had al left for the woods together.
Akbar, Anthony and Surjeet were arrested immediately and they were all booked for
murder.
On the date of the murder, Amar was 18 years and 12 days, Akbar was 17 years and 350
days, and Anthony was 17 years and 5 days. Surjeet was 16 years and 200 days old. They
were all over the age of 20 on the date of arrest.

Vidula enacted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012 on the 31 st
of January 2012.
This Act is Pari in Materia with The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 as enacted in India.

In accordance with this law, the three boys aged below 18 but above 16 at the time of
alleged commission of the crime, were sent before the Juvenile Justice Board, who had to
decide if or not, they were to be tried as adults.
The Boys vehemently denied any involvement in the murder of Sam and claimed no
knowledge of his whereabouts after they had all returned from the woods on that fateful
day.
The Board, with the help of eminent psychologists and psychiatrists, determined that the
boys were well aware of their actions and capable of being tried as adults and accordingly
committed the matter to the Sessions court at Pluto, since no special children’s court had
been established.
Based on the evidence before it, the Sessions court found all three boys guilty of the
murder of Sam and the Judge commented that it was a fit case for life imprisonment but
since his hands were tied by the law, he sentenced them to 8 years of Rigorous
imprisonment each.
Amar, on the other hand, was tried as an adult by the Sessions court, as he was over the
age of 18 on the date of commission of the offence.
He was found guilty of the torture and brutal murder of Sam and sentenced to life
imprisonment in prison, with life meaning life.
Immediately thereafter, A public interest litigation was filed by an organization called
People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of Vidula before the High Court of South Vidula. The PIL alleged
that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012, primarily Section 15
and the committal proceedings were unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution and that the Act itself violated Article 20(1) of the constitution.
PEPC vehemently urged that the whole concept of treating 16–18-year-olds differently
after having defined a child as any person below the age of 18 is unconstitutional and
baseless.
The PIL also reiterated that the decision of the Board to try the three boys as adults was
subjective and biased, primarily due to public rage, that, it had been three years since the
incident and the state of mind of three children during the incident could not be
determined after three years.
The PIL also contended that the Act was against the UN Declaration on the Rights of the
Child, a declaration to which Vidula was a signatory and which it adopted.
The High Court shall hear the matter, on all points including admissibility. Law of
Precedent shall apply with High Courts and The Supreme Court of India having
persuasive value.

Law of Vidula, namely The Constitution of Vidula, The Vidula Penal Code, the Criminal
Procedure Code, The Law of Evidence and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2012 are materially the same as The Indian Constitution, Indian Penal
Code, The Criminal Procedure Code, The Law of Evidence and the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as enacted in India.

Moot Problem – 2
Shyama is a poor boy who used to live in a slum area outskirt of the city Bandra. He
studied in government school till class 6th only after the get employed only under Mr
Batra. It has been 6 years in his employment.
Ravi aged 18 years and Vanita aged 16 years children of Mr. R. Batra. Shekhar aged 17 years
and 7 months who is son of Mr. Saxena neighbour of Mr. Batra.

Shekhar and Ravi both dislike each other since their childhood. One day Vanita and Ravi
were jogging in a park and the same time Shekhar was playing soccer and suddenly Vanita
get some minor head injury with the football. As a result, Shekhar and Ravi started
abusing each other and on the heated quarrel between the two Ravi gave a blow to a
Shekhar. Soon the quarrel was resolved by the neighbour.

Ravi and Vanita used to insult Shyama in a public place on a regular basis. One day
Shekhar saw this and talked to Shyama both started the hatred for the Ravi and Vanita.

On 7th march Shyama took a leave for 3 days from Mr. Batra and on next day Mrs. Batra
had planned for exhibition with her family but due to absence of Mr. Batra. She decided
to go with her family. Shyama already knows about this.

Mrs. Batra with her family reached the exhibition at 7.30 pm. on 8thMarcharound 8.30
pm Vanita was taken by 4 people. after this Ravi started searching his sister while
searching his sister, he found wrongfully confined his sister by 4-person two person were
holding her sister and other two were outrage her modesty while saving his sister he
suffered one blow on his head and several blows on his abdomen and he fell unconscious.
Vanita tried to scream but her mouth was shut and in sudden haste she was strangulated.
She fell dead and all 4 persons fled away. The bodies of Vanita and Ravi found around
9.30 by the guard who used to come out to switch off the light. On 10th March Shekhar
was arrested by the information of Ram Manohar and Shyama with Raju and Ranveer
was arrested on 12th march who was Shekhar ‘s
Friend. On 15th march case was admitted to J.J Board because all the 4 accused were
below the age of 18 years but case of Shyama and Shekhar goes to the session court
because J.B found that they both are well aware of the consequences and circumstances
of their acts. Both of them were tried in I.P.C. On 12th June 2015 Shekhar case was
remanded back to the J.B because of the lack of evidence of about his age but Shyama
case remained with the session court due to the rejection of bonafied test due to
inconclusiveness of test.

On 28th July Shyama found guilty under section 304,326,354 of I.P.C and get
imprisonment of 3 years. On 4 August Shekhar was sent to special home for maximum
period of 3years by the J.B after the Shekhar appealed to the session court against the
judgment of the J.J Board however the appeal was dismissed by the session court then
after Shekhar and Shyama move to high court and appealed against the conviction since
the court of session had no jurisdiction to try the case but High Court also rejected the
appeal and contention raised by the prosecution against Shyama and Shekhar that both
culprit should convicted under the section 302 instead of section 304 this was accepted
by the High Court and Shyama was sentenced for the life imprisonment and Shekhar was
sentenced for the 10 years. On 11th January, 2016,
both the accused have petitioned before this Hon’ble Apex Court against the order of

High Court and the Sessions Court. The matter is admitted and listed for hearing.

Moot Problem – 3
Shyama a poor slum-dweller, studied in a government school, dropped after
6th standard due to poor economic conditions, ever since he is a domestic-servant of
Mr. R. Batra’s family. Vanita & Ravi adolescent children of Mr. R. Batra treated Shyama
in a condescending manner, affronted him over trivial matters in public. One day while
playing a football hit Vanita’s head due to which Ravi started verbally abusing Shekhar,
who lived in the neighbourhood. Their fight was resolved by Mr. Mehta. Shekhar shared
animosity with Ravi and Vanita since childhood.
On 7th March, 2015, Shyama took leave for three days, knowing about the exhibition
that Mr. Batra’s family was planning to visit. Next day on the fateful night of 8th March,
2015 around 8:30 p.m. Vanita was taken by four persons & Ravi sensed his sister’s
absence. When Ravi reached the basement, he saw persons outraging her modesty and
while trying to save her he received a blow by a rod on his head & several blows over his
abdomen. Vanita’s mouth was forcefully shut and she was strangulated to death.
Around 9:30 p.m., the guard discovered their bodies in the basement, reported FIR and
sent bodies for medical examination. On 10th
March, 2015 I.O. arrested Shekhar on the statement of Ram Manohar and further
arrested Shyama, Raju, and Ranveer. Medical Report revealed that Ravi died due to
internal bleeding and Vanita died due to strangulation.

JJB found Shekhar & Shyama well aware of the circumstances & consequences of their
acts and their case was committed to the Session Court while Raju & Ranveer were tried
by the Juvenile Board u/s 304, 326, 354 r/w 34 and their guilt was corroborated by
circumstantial evidence, medical evidence and were sent to special home for a period of
one year.

On 28th July, 2015, Shyama was convicted u/s 304, 326, 354 r/w 34 and was sentenced to
3 years imprisonment by Court of Session and Shekhar’s case was remanded back to JJB
and he was sent to a special home for a maximum period of 3 years. Both preferred
appeal in High Court, which convicted Shyama and Shekhar u/s 302 instead of 304 and
enhanced Shyama’s sentence to life imprisonment and Shekhar’s term of imprisonment
was raised to 10 years.

Shyama & Shekhar approached the Apex Court of Indiana by way of Special Leave
Petition. Shyama challenged the proceeding of the Session Court as he was minor and
also raised question regarding the justification of the order passed by the Session Court
& the High Court, rejecting the conduct of the Bone Test for determining his age.
Shekhar challenged the judgment & order passed by the Juvenile Board, Session Court
& the High Court which was passed solely on the basis of his presence in the exhibition.
A PIL is also filed by AIM Foundation, an NGO challenging the constitutional validity
of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act), 2014.
ISSUE- I
WHETHER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OFCHILDREN) ACT,
2014 IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?

ISSUE - II
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT AND SESSION’S COURT WERE JUSTIFIED IN
REJECTING THE TEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SHYAMA’S AGE OR NOT?
ISSUE -III

WHETHER SHEKHAR SHOULD BE ACQUITTED OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED

AGAINST HIM OR NOT?

Moot Problem – 4
Mr Anil Mahajan is the owner of a ship names “Aurora”. Within the ship he has
set-up the Hotel Montecito & Casino. On the night of 31st December, 2022, the
ship ‘Aurora’ was located on river Mahanadi near Bhubaneshwar, Cuttack and it
hosted high stakes poker game on the Octavious floor. Post 11 p.m. of that night,
the Octavious vault had been breached by four men dressed in fine suits, though
while making their exit the alarm got triggered. Subsequently the four men ran
towards the deck to make an exit and threw eight waterproof bags overboard into
a motorboat. Two of the men escaped by rappelling into a motorboat, while the
other two awaited their turn to rapped down. Just as the remaining two were about
to make their escape, Mr. Mojesh the Chief Security Officer of the ship ordered
them to stop. But the two men didn’t stop. Thereafter Mr. Mojesh fired a warning
shot in the air, however when they still did not stop, he fired at one man’s knee
and subdued him, they disobeyed the order and the other man took a guest as
hostage in order to escape; subsequently the Head of Operations, Security, Maj.
 (Retd.) J.S. Rana had shot dead that other man. The police reached the scene of
crime at 12.15 a.m. after Ms Shonali a passenger on the ship registered an F.I.R. via
mobile against Maj. Rana. On 4th February 2023 one person named Bhaskar
Sanyal surrendered before the Malgodown Police and confessed that he along
with the other three persons (Ravi, Suresh and Fakir) entered within the
Montecito cassino for committing theft and Maj. Rana was also their partner in
the said crime on that night. His statement was recorded under Sec. 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, and further he also provided incriminating evidence
against all the accused by submitting a video recording but without audio in which
all of them including Maj. Rana were being seen discussing about something. The
final report of the police was made on the complicity of the accused and the I/o of
the case submitted the chargesheet on 14th March, 2023 by making all accused to
be held liable u/s 149, 396 and 302 of IPC. On 16th May, 2023, an interim order was
passed by the Sessions Court stating that the charges under Sec. 149, 396 and 302
have been read out to the accused and that the charge sheet has been served. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter is listed for final hearing
before the Session’s Court, Cuttack on the 29th Dec 2023.

Moot Problem - 5
Maheshwari Devi had two children Reena and Michael out of her wedlock with Charan Das, a
Sambalpur based businessman. She parted ways with Charan Das in 2006 and kept her children
with her parents T.K Kalra and Radha Rani and moved to Cuttack where she married Sanjay
Burma. In 2010, Maheshwari parted ways with Sanjay and got married to Mr Abhisekh owner of
‘Lagataar Network’ in 2013. Once Reena and Michael Kalra learnt of their mother’s marriage to
Mr Abhisekh, they contacted her since they were in need of money. Maheshwari agreed to help
them if they were willing to present themselves, to her new family and friends, as her siblings and
not as her children. For this, Maheshwari got the birth and school certificates of Reena and
Michael changed where T.K. Kalra and Radha Rani were named as their parents. In 2016, Reena
joined XIM University in Bhubaneswar and started dating Rohan, Mr Abhishekh’s son from his
previous marriage. Maheshwari did not approve of this relationship. She also disliked the growing
closeness between Reena and Abhishekh. Reena informed Rohan that she was Maheshwari’s
daughter and not her sister. This fact was eventually disclosed to Abhishekh too. These reasons
formed a bone of contention between Reena and Maheshwari. The last time Reena Kalra was seen
on 24th April 2017. On the same day, a message was sent by Maheshwari to Rohan from Reena’s
phone, wanting to break up with him. Suspecting Reena’s disappearance, Rohan tried filing a
missing person’s report in Sahid Nagar police station, but the plaint was not registered. Rohan
told the police that Reena’s passport was at his place, where they were told by Maheshwari that
she got her a new passport and that Reena had fled the country to avoid contact with Rohan, who
was stalking her. On 23rd May, 2017 the local police found a decomposed body at the crime spot
after the villagers complained of a foul odour. The body remained unidentified. No investigation
was initiated by the police on recovery of the dead body. Three years later on 20th May, 2020, an
anonymous phone call to the police stated that an auto rickshaw driver had killed a young girl
from a business family. The call also stated that the body had been dumped in Rasulgarh. This
phone call led the police to probe further and led them to Raman Rai, the driver of Maheshwari.
Upon digging deeper, a skeleton was recovered and it was found that the body was of Reena Kalra.
The statement of Raman has been corroborated by the recovery of the murder weapons from the
car in which the murder of Reena Kalra took place. According to Raman’s statement, Reena was
strangulated to death by Sanja Burma in a car being driven by Raman, with Maheshwari, the
mastermind of the entire plan sitting in the car. The body was thereafter dumped along the
Rasulgarh highway and set ablaze. In the Chargesheet filed by the I/O Maheshwari Devi,
(Accused 1) has been charged with: Murder under Section 302 read with section 34, Abetment
under Section 109, Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120, causing disappearance of Evidence of
offence under Section 201 read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sanjay Burma,
(Accused 2) has been charged with: Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Criminal
Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of offence under Section 201
read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Raman Rai (Accused 3) has been charged
with: Murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Abetment under Section 109, Criminal
Conspiracy under Section 120, Causing disappearance of Evidence of offence under Section 201
read with section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Hon’ble Sessions Court has held that,
Maheshwari was to be sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and other
accused were sentenced to an imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs.15000/-. Aggrieved by
the decision of the Hon’ble Sessions Court Maheshwari filed an appeal in the Hon’ble High court
of Orissa and the case is listed for hearing on 20th December 2023.

Moot Problem – 6
Hasan Jardari is a Muslim, 22-year-old Commerce Graduate from Pipili of Dist. Puri.
Falguni, is a Hindu, pursuing her junior college studies. They are neighbours. They
developed a relationship of love and affection and wanted to marry each other. The only
impediment to this was Falguni’s father who was against inter-religious relationship and
marriage. They would meet clandestinely, and Hasan used to assure Falguni of a married
life in the city once he got a job there. He also promised to convince her father,
Raghunath, for their marriage. He, one day, tried to persuade her father but Raghunath
did not accede to the persuasion. Hasan got a job in Rourkela in January 2022 and
disappointed by the refusal, he shifts to Rourkela for the same. Two months later on 12th
March 2022, he receives a call from Falguni wherein she asks him to meet her at the
outskirts of Pipili. They meet after 2 days 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
Rourkela. While boarding, Pandu, Raghunath’s friend, sees them. Based on the
information given by Pandu, Raghunath filed a complaint against Hasan. Two days later,
Hasan and Falguni are caught living together in a small room near Rourkela. The police
arrested Hasan and booked him under Sec. 361 and Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Further they obtained the birth certificate of Falguni from the Gram Panchayat
which indicated that she was seventeen years old. The trial court convicted Hasan of both
the charges. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa.
 Moot Problem – 7
Mr. Swarn Kumar is an influential businessman from Delhi with a company of Rs.30
crores dealing in ice cubes. He is known to enjoy gambling, socialising and is notorious
for being a womanizer. On a trip to Goa with his friends, Mr. Aditya Sahni, an esteemed
lawyer from Delhi, also accompanied him. On 3/10/2016, Mr. Kumar was playing poker
at casino Royale, an offshore casino in Goa. After losing approximately Rs.3 crores, he was
desperate for more money as he believed he would have a winning hand. He signed a
contract with Mr. Akhil Singhal (a money lender of the casino) and he lent him Rs.5
crores. The contract contained a clause that he would pay him double the loan amount
(Rs.10 Crores) at the table and in default, he would sign over his majority shares in his
company as surety. The contract was in a form of prewritten agreement. Subsequently,
Swarn Kumar lost all the money at the table and was unable to return double the loan
amount and as a consequence lost his majority shares of the company at 2 AM on
04/10/2016. Thereafter, in a desperate attempt he called Mr. Aditya, who then contacted
Akhil to take double the loan but not to take the majority shares of the company, but
Akhil refused the offer. Immediately after acquiring majority shares of the company of
Swarn Kumar, Akhil signed a contract with a Delhi based company A & M Pvt Ltd for
selling majority shares of the company. The video from the casino shows that prior to
signing the contract, Swarn Kumar had consumed 8 alcohol beverages (8x30ml). Alleging
the above stated facts through his counsel, Swarn Kumar filed a civil suit before the
Hon’ble Commercial Court of Delhi to prevent Akhil from taking over the company

Moot Problem – 8
'RAM SINGH' died leaving behind his wife 'RAJANI' and two sons namely RABIN' and
'RAMESH', 'RAJANI' died one year after the death of her husband. RABIN' had a son
named 'RAJU', 'RAMESH' had two daughters namely 'RITA' and 'RINA'. Having no
daughter and on being approached, RAMESH agreed to give his daughter RINA in
adoption to RABIN on a promise to alienate A 0.20 decimal of cultivated land to be
recorded in the name of 'RINA'. Such adoption and alienation of property created
discontentment between the members of the family of 'RABIN AND RAMESH'. In the
year 2020, RAJU filed a Civil suit challenging the adoption and alienation of property as
unlawful and contrary to the provision of law. The learned Civil Judge however, decreed
the suit in favour of 'RAJU. Being aggrieved by the said 'Decree', RINA preferred a
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL before the learned District Judge on the grounds stated
therein

Moot Problem – 9
BADAL MEHETA' the accused was a resident of Berhampur City. In the year 2019, he got
married to 'KIRAN', the only daughter of Dr. Singh, the retd. CDMO of 'NELORE
HOSPITAL' at Hyderabad. During the year 2020 MR. BADAL MEHETA along with his
wife 'KIRAN' visited 'NELORE'. During their stay at NELORE the accused 'BADAL
MEHETA' borrowed Rs.10,000/- from RAMESWAR who was working as an Asst. Station
Master in the Railway Department of 'NELORE RAILWAY STATION'. Later, the accused
with his wife returned back to the city of Berhampur. On 30.10.2020 the deceased
'RAMESWAR' received a letter from the wife of the accused asking the deceased to came
and collect money at Berhampur. The deceased RAMESWAR also showed that letter to
his wife ‘LUCY’ and left for Berhampur on 02.11.2020. On 04.11.2020 the dead body of
RAMESWAR was found cut into seven pieces in an Iron Box at Railway Compartment of
Berhampur Railway Station. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused
purchased the said Iron box from RAHIM. Thereafter, the accused was arrested by police
and charge-sheet was submitted against the accused 'BADAL MEHETA' u/s 302 IPC.
During Trial, the statement made by the deceased, RAMESWAR before his wife. 'LUCY'
that he was proceeding to Berhampur was held to be admissible u/s 31(1) of the Evidence
Act. 1872. The Learned Sessions Judge made it clear that the evidence of any such
circumstances must related to the actual occurrence. The accused's wife KIRAN was in
secret love with the deceased RAMESWAR Besides a number of love letters exchanged
between them and those are admitted in evidence. The Learned Sessions Judge held that
the statement made by the deceased RAMESWAR before his death was held to be
admissible. On the basis of such statement, the Learned Sessions Judge convicted the
accused u/s 302 IPC. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Appeal before the High
Court of Orissa. The Appeal is ready for Admission of Hearing.

Moot Problem – 10
On a Sunday night at about 11:00 P.M, a girl aged about 18 years was travelling along with
her friend for a destination passing through a lonely way. In the bus only 6 persons were
there including the driver and conductor. Taking the advantage of loneliness the 4-
person started misbehaving with the girl and her friend. The driver slows down the bus
at a place and the other persons by using force throw the girl’s friend from the bus and
then committed sexual assault on her. On arrest one of the accused pleaded Juvenile at
the date of commission of the crime. The medical examination report of the accused
found him 16 years old at the time of commission of the offences. * In the backdrop of
the above facts, frame the issue and argue on behalf of the state and the accused with
relevant case laws to justify your statement.
1 ABHIPSHA PRIYADARSHINI PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 1
2 ABHISHEK MAHAKHUDA PETITIONER 2
61 MRUTYUNJAY HATI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
63 NAMITA DALAI OPPOSITE PARTY 2

3 ADITI SENAPATI PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 2

4 AEISHWARJYA PETITIONER 2
PRIYADARSHINI
64 NAMRATA PRIYADARSHINI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
MOHANTY
66 NITISH KUMAR SHIT OPPOSITE PARTY 2

5 AISURYA NANDA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 3

9 AMIT KUMAR SETHY PETITIONER 2
67 PARTHA SARATHI TARAI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
68 PRADYUMNA KUMAR DALEI OPPOSITE PARTY 2

10 AMRITA MISHRA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 4

12 ARCHANA RANI PALA PETITIONER 2
70 PRATIKSHYA DALAI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
71 PRATIMA BEHERA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

13 ARPITA NAYAK PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 5

14 ASHUTOSH DEBATA PETITIONER 2
73 PREETINANDA RANA OPPOSITE PARTY 1
75 PRIYANKA DAS OPPOSITE PARTY 2

15 ASHUTOSH DAS PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 6

17 BAISHAKHI MALLIK PETITIONER 2
76 PRIYANKA PRIYADARSHINI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
DAS
77 RAJANIKANTA MAHALIK OPPOSITE PARTY 2

19 BHAGYA RANJAN KHUNTIA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 7

20 BHAGYASHREE PATTNAIK PETITIONER 2
78 RAJASHREE SAHOO OPPOSITE PARTY 1
79 RAJASWARI BAL OPPOSITE PARTY 2

23 BISHNUDUTTA MISHRA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 8

25 BISWRAJ RAUL PETITIONER 2
81 RANJAN KUMAR DAS OPPOSITE PARTY 1
82 REEMSHA ZUBIYA ASIF OPPOSITE PARTY 2

27 CHANDAN RAJ BEHERA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 9

28 CHINMAYEE BEHERA PETITIONER 2
83 SAFIA REHEMAT OPPOSITE PARTY 1
84 SAMBIT KUMAR SAHOO OPPOSITE PARTY 2

29 CHINMAYEE PRADHAN PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 10

30 CHINMAYEE SUTAR PETITIONER 2
85 SANGITA DALAI OPPOSITE PARTY 1
86 SANGRAM PRADHAN OPPOSITE PARTY 2

31 DANDAPANI MOHANTY PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 1

34 DEEPAK KUMAR SAHOO PETITIONER 2
87 SANGRAM SAHOO OPPOSITE PARTY 1
88 SANTANU MOHAPATRA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

35 DEEPIKA PALTASHING PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 2

36 DHIRENDRA KUMAR DHAL PETITIONER 2
89 SATABDI SWAIN OPPOSITE PARTY 1
90 SHASHWATA SEKHAR BARAL OPPOSITE PARTY 2

37 DIVYASWARI BHOI PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 3

39 DIPTIRANI JENA PETITIONER 2
91 SHIBANI ROUT OPPOSITE PARTY 1
93 SHRADHANJALI MARTHA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

40 DIVYA DARSHAN NAYAK PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 4

41 HHRITIK ROSHAN BISWAL PETITIONER 2
95 SIDDHATHA SANKAR PANDA OPPOSITE PARTY 1
96 SMARAKEE BEHERA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

42 IPSHITA PRIYADARSHINI PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 5

43 JASASWANI SAHOO PETITIONER 2
98 SOUMYASHREE MANDAL OPPOSITE PARTY 1
99 SRABANI SAMAL OPPOSITE PARTY 2

45 JOYTSNA RANI SAHU PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 6

46 KALPANA BEHERA PETITIONER 2
100 SRADHANJALI DAS OPPOSITE PARTY 1
101 SUBHASHREE DAS OPPOSITE PARTY 2

47 KANHEI BALLABH DAS PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 7

49 KISHAN KUMAR DAS PETITIONER 1
102 SUBHASHREE SUBHASMITA OPPOSITE PARTY 1
103 SUBHASHREE SUCHISMITA OPPOSITE PARTY 2
SWAIN
50 LIPSA DALAI PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 8
51 LOKNATH JENA PETITIONER 2
106 SUDESHNA MANGARAJ OPPOSITE PARTY 1
107 SUDHANSU BEHERA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

52 MADHUSMITA KAR PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 9

53 MADHUSMITA MOHAPATRA PETITIONER 2
108 SUNITA CHAKRABARTY OPPOSITE PARTY 1
109 SUNITA HEMBRAM OPPOSITE PARTY 2

55 MADHUSMITA SETHY PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 10

56 MOHAMMAD SHAHAJAHAN PETITIONER 2
112 SUREKHA EKKA OPPOSITE PARTY 1
113 SUSHREE MIRAMBIKA OPPOSITE PARTY 2
BHOLA

58 MAMI PANDA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 1

59 MANISHA ROUT PETITIONER 2
114 SUSMITA MOHANTY OPPOSITE PARTY 1
115 SWAPNAJYOTI JENA OPPOSITE PARTY 2

116 SWASTIK MOHANTA PETITIONER 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 2

117 SWATA SWAGATIKA SAHOO PETITIONER. 2
118 TANMAYA KUMAR MISHRA OPPOSITE PARTY. 1
120 YAGNYASENI MISHRA OPPOSITE PARTY. 2

121 POULIMA DAS PETITIONER. 1 MOOT PROBLEM NO 3

122 ABHISHEK PAL PETITIONER. 2
123 AISWARIYA RATH OPPOSITE PARTY. 1
124 ANIMESH PATRA OPPOSITE PARTY. 2