TC-41A

RGNUL 12TH NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, ARKA SANTORIN

APPEAL No /2022

VICKY SARKAAR.......................................................................(APPELLANT)

V.

STATE OF ARKADAPPA..............................................................(RESPONDENT)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF ARKA SANTORIN CHALLENGING THE DISMISSAL

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENT

S PARTICULARS PAGE No.

No.
1 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 2

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITY 3-5

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5 ISSUE RAISED 9

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11

7 ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12-30

8 PRAYER CLAUSE 31

1|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
LIST OF ABBREVATION

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

ANA Arka Sakshya Adhiniyam

ANS Arka Nyaya Sanhita

ANSS Arka Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Cal Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal

Del Delhi High Court

Ed. Edition

p. Page No.

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec Section

TIP Test Identification Parade

2|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
INDEX OF AUTHORTIES

 CASES REFFERED

S CASE TITLE CITATION AT

No. PAGE
1. Amit Bhikam Singh Thakur v. State Of CRL.APPEALL 18
Maharashtra NO.364/2005
2. Gireesan Nair v. State Of Kerala MANU/SC/1486/2022 13

3. Jameel v. State Of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 971 15

4. Kali Ram v. State Of H.P (1973) 2 SCC 808 18, 27

5. Krishan Kumar Malik v. State Of Haryana's AIR 2011 SC 2877 16

3. Ks Puttaswamy v. Union Of India 2017 10 SCC 1 25

7. M. P. Lohia v. State Of West Bengal C.A 219 30

8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India 1978 AIR 597 26

9. Manu Sharma v . State (Nct Of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 27

10. Pratap Mishra v. State Of Orissa. AIR 1977 SC 1037 15

11. R v. Roberts [2000]CRIM LR 183 15

(99/0458/X3)
12. R v. Waipouri (1993) ZNLR410 15
13. Rai Sandeep v . S t a t e ( Nct Of Delhi) AIR 2012 SC 3157 16

14. Rajoo And Others v. State Of Madhya AIR 2009 SC 858 16

Pradesh
15. Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab 4. CRM-A NO.1826- 14
MA OF 2018

3|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
16. Ramkishan v. Bombay State AIR 1955 SC 104 13
17. Sahara Group v. Sebi AIR 2012 SC 3829 28
5. Sanjay Dutt v. State Of Maharashtra CA 1834-35 OF 1994 28
21. Santosh Prasad v. State Of Bihar AIR 2020 SC 985 16
22. Selvi v. State Of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 22
23. Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State (2016) 11 SCC 265 14
24. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. 1958 AIR 538 21
R. Tendolkar

25. State Of Gujarat V. Kishorbhai Devjibhai R/SCR.A/710/2023 14

Parwar
26. State Of H.P. V. Prem Chand AIR 2003 SC 708 14
27. State Of Maharashtra v. R J Gandhi AIR 1997 SC 3986 28,30
28. State Of Maharashtra v. Suresh AIRONLINE 1999 SC 169 13
29. State Of U.P. v. Naresh And Ors (2001) 4 SCC 322 18. 27

 WEBSITES

WWW.LEGALSERVICES.COM

WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM

WWW.IPLEADER.COM

WWW.LAWBITES.COM

WWW.LAWOCTOPUS.COM

WWW.LIVELAW.COM

WWW.LEXIS.COM

WWW.PATHLEGAL.COM

WWW.MANUPATRA.COM

4|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 BOOKS REFFERED

1. KELKAR, R.V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, (5TH ED. 2011)

2. LAL, BATUK, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, (18'' ED. 2010)
3. LYONS, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE & TOXICOLOGY, (11' ED. 2005)
4. MISHRA, SN. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY
5. MP JAIN , CONSTITUTION OF ARKA SANTORIN, LEXIS NEXIS,(8*ED)
6. RATANLAL AND DHIRAILAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 33RD ED. (2011)
7. SARKAR, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (13' ED, 1990)
8. SHARMA, B.R., FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & TRIALS, (4*
ED. 2003)

5|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant humbly sumbits this memorandum for the appeal filed before this honourable
court. The appeal is filed under article 136 of contitution of Arka Santorin.

Article 136 read as: special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Not withstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or
order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating
to the armed forces

6|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Arka Santorin, a South Asian country, is a union of 28 states. It has a written
Constitution and a federal democratic pattern of government. The Republic of Arka Santorin
is at the forefront of the protection of human rights.The Constitution of Arka Santorin
guarantees most of the basic human rights as fundamental rights. The judiciary in Arka
Santorin also plays an active role in this field and incorporates several human rights through
the interpretation of different constitutional provisions and has assigned many of these rights
the status of a fundamental right.
2. The incidents of sexual abuse are on the rise in the country of Arka Santorin. Hence, the
Central Government has introduced several amendments to their criminal laws in the year
2013. Recently, the century-old criminal major laws were replaced with updated provisions
in the name of Arka Nyaya Sanhita; Arka Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita; and Arka Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
3. Mr. Mohan Sharma and his wife Sakuntala Devi live in the village of Arkepur, Santorin
District, State of Arkadappa with their two daughters, Ashraya and Anugraha. Mohan
Sharma is running a provisional store near the bus stand of Arkepur. Miss Ashraya, the eldest
daughter is 21 years old and has interest in studies. However, she lost her vision due to
Microphthalmia. Sakuntala Devi is a housewife and she is taking care of her daughter
Ashraya and helping in her studies. As a result, Ashraya has graduated successfully. Though
Ashraya is not able to see she can distinguish and identify persons by hearing their voices.
4. On 10th August 2022, Mohan Sharma went to his shop in the morning. The younger
daughter Anugraha, went to attend her school. By 11.00 a.m., Sakuntala Devi went to a
nearby village to attend a religious ceremony. At about 1.00 p.m., Sakuntala Devi returned
home and when she came near to Ashraya’s room, she found that somebody had broken the
door lock and entered inside. Sakuntala Devi rushed into the room of Ashraya, and hearing
the noise, Ashraya started crying. From the condition of the room, Sakuntala Devi could feel
that somebody had entered the room. After a few minutes of crying Ashraya explained to her
mother that a boy had entered her room and sexually abused her.
5. From the explanation of Ashraya, Sakuntala Devi understood that Ashraya was raped and it
was committed by a boy named Vicky Sarkar who lived in the neighbourhood. Vicky is the
son of Mr. Madura Sarkar, who is an MLA and is about to be inducted as a minister in the

7|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
State

8|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
of Arkadappa. Vicky and Ashraya were childhood friends as they had studied in the same
school till 5th class. Afterwards, both of them had studied in different institutions.
6. On receiving the information about the incident, the police officer reached the house of
Mohan Sharma and took the first information statement from the victim. The victim also had
to undergo a medical examination and the examination report supports the statement of the
victim that there was forced sexual intercourse. However, there was no material evidence like
the presence of semen, any other fluid, or hairs, etc. to suggest towards the accused.
Moreover, there were no physical injuries found in the body to suggest resistance from the
side of the victim.
7. Based on the statements of Ashraya and Sakuntala Devi, the investigation officer made a
preliminary investigation and subsequently arrested Vicky on 12th August 2022. Before the
arrest, the police filed an application to the Magistrate to conduct a test identification parade,
in which based on the voice and touch, the victim identified Vicky. The investigating officer
has also collected measurements from the accused based on the procedure laid down in the
appropriate laws and rules.
8. Subsequently, during the trial, the defence questioned the legality of the test identification
parade conducted by the police and also questioned the admissibility of its result as evidence.
However, the trial court convicted the accused for a term of 14 years imprisonment.
9. The said conviction was challenged by the accused in the High Court of Arkadappa. The
appellant challenged the admissibility of the evidence collected through the test identification
parade and also challenged the legality of the law permitting the police officer to collect
measurements from an accused.
10. During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellant preferred another petition to the
Hon’ble High Court to issue an order thereby prohibiting the publication of news and stories
about the said incident of alleged rape. The petitioners argued that, the publication of
exaggerated news and stories by different media including online media and social media
platforms would vitiate the trial. However, both the appealand the petition were dismissed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Arkadappa and the High Court reaffirmed the trial court’s
judgment. Aggrieved by the dismissals, the accused filed two appeals to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Arka Santorin.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Arka Santorin for the sake of convenience, decided to hear
both petitions on the same day.
9|Page
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
ISSUE RAISED:-

A. Whether the evidence collected through the test identification parade, in this case, is
admissible as valid evidence?
B. Whether the conduct of a test identification parade is a violation of the fundamental
rights of the accused?
C. Whether the Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is
constitutionally valid?
D. Whether the issuance of a direction to refrain from publishing details of a criminal case
and stories about the accused is constitutionally permissible?

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether the evidence collected through the test identification parade, in this case, is
admissible as valid evidence?

It is humbly submitted before honorable court that evidence collected through test parade
identification conducted in this case cannot be concluded as admissible as valid evidence because
there is lack of veracity in evidence. TIP conducted in above case does not produces any
substantive evidence, the evidences collected through TIP has very low evidentiary value and
turned out to be futile which does not attracts conviction on its sole basis and this will be proved
by further points. It is clearly mentioned in the examination report, there was no material
evidence like presence of semen, any other fluid or hair to suggest towards the accused and there
were no injuries found on the body of victim. The counsel appearing on the behalf of appellant
conclusively proves that test identification parade conducted in this case is invalid and evidences
collected through this parade cannot be taken into consideration are not admissible because
accused was known and all material evidences provided in medical examination are also
insubstantial and notional and this depreciates the veracity of the witness

B. Whether the conduct of a test identification parade is a violation of the fundamental

rights of the accused?

It is most humbly submitted that the appellant is required to prove that how test identification
parade violated his fundamental rights.The accused fundamental rights are in prejudice and the
lower courts has scuttled to the decision of convicting the accused which has resulted in violation
of his various human rights. There is massive violation of fundamental rights of the accused.
Under the Santorin context, this privilege is provided under article 20(3) acts as an umbrella to
protect the accused from the testimonial or any kind of compulsion. It is assumed that, it is the
duty of the state to prove that the crime was committed by the accused and not the accused to
himself prove him to be guilty of offence. Another assumption is that the accused is presumed to
be guilty until and unless proven guilty and lastly, an accused cannot be compelled to be a
witness against himself, he has the right to remain silent

C. Whether the Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is

constitutionally valid?

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
It is most humbly showeth before honorable court that section 3 of criminal procedure
(Identification act, 2022) is unconstitutional because it abridges and infringes other fundamental
rights. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 2022 made a classification concerning the person
who can be compelled to give a 'biological sample'. It states that any person who has been
arrested for an offence against a woman or a child or committed an offence punishable with
imprisonment of seven years or more is required to compulsory furnish their "biological sample".
The plea submitted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, in flagrant violation of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court, allows excessive, coercive and arbitrary intrusion into the dignity of a
convict as well as of an individual who may be called in for simple questioning, or who is
involved in the pettiest of offences. These provisions constitute a clear attack on 'personal liberty
and clearly fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution and are thus liable to be struck down.
Section 3 of the Act without defining the word "behavioral attributes" would subject the term to
numerous interpretations, which may even lead to harsh consequences. These Constitutional
concerns necessitates careful scrunity and revision of the Act to align with constitutional
concerns necessitate careful scrutiny and revision damental rights and principles of
implementation and proportionality to ensure a balanced and constitutionally (Identification) Act
2022 infringes fundamental rights of the accused persons which makes it unconstitutional or
constitutionally invalid.

D. Whether the issuance of a direction to refrain from publishing details of a criminal case
and stories about the accused is constitutionally permissible?

It is most humbly submitted before honorable court that issuance of direction to refrain from
publishing details of a criminal case and stories about the accused is constitutionally permissible
because the vital gap between the convict and accused is completely overlooked by the media by
keeping at stake the cardinal principles of 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty and guilt
beyond reasonable doubt'. The counsel here wants to conclude that freedom of press should not
hampered but it should be regulated. The media house should focus on delivering the reality or
truth to every person. Information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the
tube one can't get it back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go
away. Trial by media has been held to be the very antithesis of the rule of law.

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE No.1) WHETHER THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED THROUGH THE TEST

IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN THIS CASE, IS ADMISSIBLE AS VALID EVIDENCE?

It is humbly submitted before honorable court that evidence collected through test parade
identification conducted in this case cannot be concluded as admissible as valid evidence
because there is lack of veracity in evidence. This will be proven by following points.

A. EVIDENCE COLLECTED THROUGH TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE IN THIS

CASE IS INVALID

1. Test identification parade (further denoted as TIP) is a process that is mostly used in criminal
cases to identify the accused before the court. The role of the witness is very important in the
test identification parade because it is the responsibility of the witness to identify the accused
through the parade. The idea of this process is to check whether the witness can identify the
accused among the various several individuals. This will establish the fidelity of the witness
in identifying an unknown person related to the context of the offense.
2. Section 7 of Arka sakshya bill states that Test Identification Parade can be a useful method
within an investigation and with due process is often accepted as evidence or as confirmation
within a court of law test identification parade, is a procedure commonly used in criminal
cases to identify the accused in a court of law. Witnesses play a crucial role in this process as
it's their responsibility to recognize the accused among a group of individuals presented in
the parade.
3. Test Identification Parade is governed by Section 54 of the Arka Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
describes the procedure Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and
his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may on the request of the officer
in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification
by any person or persons in such manner as the Court ma y deem fit. Identification of the
accused by the witness in the Test Identification Parade is a shred of primary evidence but
not substantive evidence it is used to support the identification of the accused by the witness
in a court of law.

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
4. In the case of Ramkishan v. Bombay State1 it was established that, during the investigation
of a crime, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the
purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the
offence or the individuals involved in the crime.
5. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh2The Supreme Court emphasized that Test Identification
Parades are primarily held for the benefit of the investigation, rather than being conducted
solely for court purposes. Test Identification Parade serves as a tool to assist in establishing
the identity of the accused.

B. FAMILIARITY OF ACCUSED WITH WITNESS

1. In this case evidence collected through test identification parade is not admissible as Test
Identification is necessary in cases where the victim or witness did not know the accused
before the occurrence and it is vividly mentioned in the facts that victim was known to the
accused as they were childhood friends as they had studied in the same school till 5th class
and this shatters the veracity of test identification parade.
2. In State of H.P. v. Prem Chand3 the Supreme Court held that a test identification parade is
not required when the witness already knows the accused and can identify them in the court
of law. If there is a pre-existing familiarity with the accused, a formal test identification
parade may not be essential.
3. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab4 reaffirmed the principle
established in the Prem Chand case, emphasizing that test identification parade is
unnecessary when the witness is already acquainted with and can identify the accused in the
courtroom.TIP belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. It assures that investigation
is proceeding in the right direction. It is rule of prudence which is required to be followed in
cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant. The evidence of a
TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence. TIP even if held, cannot be considered in all cases
as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained5.

1
Ramkishan vs Bombay State, AIR 1955 SC 104
2
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, AIRONLINE 1999 SC 169
3
State of H.P. v. Prem Chand, AIR 2003 SC 708,
4
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, CRM-A No.1826-MA of 2018
5
Gireesan Nair v. State of kerala MANU/SC/1486/2022

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
4. In the case of Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State6 it was held that the investigation parade does
not hold much value when the identity of the accused is already known to the witness. Where
witness as to incident being not acute strangers, being of same locality then there is
relevancy. The veracity of TIP gets shattered as here because witness was known to the
accused as they were classmates till 5th standard moreover they live in same locality. She
had a familiarity with the voice and detected the accused through touch here TIP conducted is
highly invalid as its prerequisite of being anonymous to the accused is violated.

C. NOT SUBSTANSTIVE EVIDENCE: TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE

1. TIP conducted in above case does not produces any substantive evidence, the evidences
collected through TIP has very low evidentiary value and turned out to be futile which does
not attracts conviction on its sole basis and this will be proved by further points. It is clearly
mentioned in the examination report, there was no material evidence like presence of semen,
any other fluid or hair to suggest towards the accused and there were no injuries found on the
body of victim. This is vividly stated in medical examination report and raises veracity of the
above argument.
2. To convict a person his or her connection to the crime is crucial and to deliver justice the
same is needed to be proved not on the presence of mere circumstances but with a
substantive proof and when substantial evidence is lacking to connect the accused with the
crime other corroborative evidences loses its significance.7
3. This piece of evidence is of weak character and corroborative evidence not a substantive
evidence and conviction cannot be solely made on this basis. The result of the identification
parade conducted at the stage of investigation is not a substantive piece of evidence and
cannot be the basis of conviction by itself. It has very less evidentiary value. Because it just
ensures that the inquiry is proceeding in the right direction, the Test Identification Parade is
not a substantial or key evidence.
4. The parade held during the investigation cannot be regarded important or primary evidence,
and guilt cannot be based just on the results of the test identification parade; in order to
convict, the witness must produce concrete and substantive evidence in court.

6
Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State, (2016) 11 SCC 265
7
State of Gujarat vs kishorbhai devjibhai parwar, R/SCR.A/710/2023

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
5. Test identification is not required when both witness and accused know each other as they
reside in the same place. The reason for test identification is to support and examine the
genuinely of that evidence. It is in a way assumed to be a safe rule of authenticity to normally
look for corroboration of the testimony of a witness in court to recognize the identity of the
accused strangers to them in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of
authenticity is identified with exceptions". In the case of Jameel v. State of Maharashtra8
where the victim identified the accused on the next day of the offence and she and her family
members knew the accused, not holding of test identification parade is inconsequential.
6. In the case of Pratap Mishra v. State of Orissa 9 where the medical evidence disclosed that
the prosecutrix did not put up any resistance to the alleged onslaught committed on her by the
accused and there was no injury of the accused of the accused or on prosecutrix the only
irresistible inferences can be that prosecutrix was consenting party.
7. It was recognized by New Zealand's Court of Appeal in R v. Waipouri10 that voice-
identification evidence is generally less reliable than visual-identification evidence and that
even greater caution is required when relying on it. In R v. Roberts11 the Court of Appeal
received expert evidence to the effect that a voice identification is more likely to be wrong
than a visual identification, that ordinary people are as willing to rely on identification by
ear- witnesses as they are on identification by eye-witnesses and that the identification of a
stranger's voice is a very difficult task, even if the opportunity to listen to the voice was
relatively good.

D. TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE: NOT A SOLE BASIS FOR CONVICTION

1. The counsel here wants to bring into notice that evidence collected through TIP and medical
report is not of sterling quality. It creates a room of doubt as all evidences presented herein
above case are corroborative and notional and it should not serve as sole basis for
conviction.The accused who is convicted for alleged rape should be given benefit of doubt as
there is absence of concrete evidence and there are chances that accused is falsely implicated

8
Jameel vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 971
9
Pratap Mishra vs State of Orissa. AIR 1977 SC 1037;1977 Cri LJ 817
10
R v. Waipouri, (1993) ZNLR410
11
R v. Roberts, [2000] Crim LR 183 (99/0458/X3)

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
in this case because it’s clearly alluded to facts that it was mother of Ashraya who concluded
from the statements of Ashraya that offender is Vicky Sarkar, the accused must be
safeguarded from potential false accusations.
2. The Supreme Court in Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar 12 talked about the corroboration of
the victim's statement and gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The hon'ble court
relied upon a judgment in which it was stated that it is important to remember that while rape
is the crime that results in the most suffering and humiliation for the victim, a false rape
accusation can also result in suffering and harm for the accused.
3. Several lacunae in the victim's statement is not sterling quality evidence. In the case of
Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana's13 and Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)
14
the hon'ble apex court acquitted the accused and held,
"No, doubt it is true that to hold an accused guilty for the commission of an offense of rape,
the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence
and appears trustworthy, unblemished, and should be of sterling quality. But in the case in
hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been
projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and
cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offence.”
4. The honorable supreme court in Rajoo and others v. state of Madhya Pradesh15" held that-
"Ordinarily, the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected. It should be believed,
more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if
the observations must carry the most significant weight. We respectfully agree with them, but
at the same time, they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every
case of sexual assault which comes before the court."
5. Court further said that rape causes the victim the most significant distress and humiliation.
Still, at the same, a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation, and damage
to the accused as well.
6. There is insufficient corroboration of evidences and accused must be given benefit of doubt
and counsel here vehemently submits that court below committed a serious error in holding

12
Santosh Prasad v State of Bihar, AIR 2020 SC 985
13
Krishan Kumar Malik v State of Haryana's, AIR 2011 SC 2877
14
Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 3157
15
Rajoo and others v state of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
that the prosecution was successful in establishing its case against the appellant convict
beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel wants to submit that there is no other evidence
on record to connect the appellant convict with the alleged crime.
7. So, counsel appearing on the behalf of appellant conclusively proves that test identification
parade conducted in this case is invalid and evidences collected through this parade cannot be
taken into consideration are not admissible because accused was known and all material
evidences provided in medical examination are also insubstantial and notional and this
depreciates the veracity of the witness

ISSUE No. 2) WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF A TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS

A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED?

It is most humbly submitted that the appellant is required to prove that how test identification
parade violated his fundamental rights through following points.

TRANSGRESSION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

1) The accused fundamental rights are in prejudice and the lower courts has scuttled to the
decision of convicting the accused which has resulted in violation of his various human rights.
There is massive violation of fundamental rights of the accused.

2) The accused persons are also granted certain rights, the most basic of which are found in the
Indian Constitution. An accused has certain rights during the course of any investigation; enquiry
or trial of offence with which he is charged, and he should be protected against any arbitrary.

3) TIP conducted in given case has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights of the
accused which includes infringement of his privacy, reputation and personal life and liberty.
Exclusion of compulsion is very important to avoid the miscarriage of justice, another thing to
note is that under stress, it is likely that the accused gives a false statement even though he is
innocent. Thus, there arises several other factors which are taken into consideration by this
doctrine.

4) The accused i.e. Vicky Sarkar never denied for giving the measurements for TIP and this is
so evident of his innocence otherwise if there was any other accused person he would have
denied giving samples for the test.
19 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
20 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
5) Moreover all the findings in medical examination report are in the favor of accused as it
clearly states that there is no material evidence as there was absence of semen, any other fluid or
hair etc. And there were no physical injuries on the body of victim. This violated his right to
privacy and dignity which is one of the most cherished fundamental right.

CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

1) Right to privacy is soul of one's life it is one of the most important right which is given to
every citizen. It falls under article 21 which is right to life and personal liberty and the
compulsion of giving samples creates an undue pressure on the accused even if he's not at fault.

2) Criminal proceedings which start from a presumption of guilt and put the onus to prove one’s
innocence on the accused are inherently unfair. In the case of Amit bhikam singh Thakur v.
State of Maharashtra16, the Apex Court held that the refusal of the accused to participate in the
Test Identification Parade can be purported with the guilt of the accused only in such cases
wherein the trial court can exercise its discretion taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of such case.

3) Additionally, such an inference can be drawn from the existence of corroborative evidence. It
is obligatory on accused to give measurements of the body which can't be denied and this
indirectly creates an undue pressure and Bound him to do so and this not only violates his
privacy but also vitiates the quality of evidences.

4) In this particular case accused never denied for conducting tip which is evident of his
innocence and guiltlessness and moreover there is no such evidence in medical reports which
makes accuse guilty and this puts a mark on his character and creates a blemished disposition in
the society and his right to reputation thus gets non complied.

5). In State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors17. the Supreme Court observed “every accused is
presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human
right subject to the statutory exceptions. The said principle forms the basis of criminal
jurisprudence in India.”
6) In Kali Ram v. State of H.P18 the Supreme Court observed “it is no doubt that wrongful

16
Amit bhikam singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, CRL.APPEALL No.364/2005
17
State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors , (2001) 4 SCC 324
21 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
18
Kali Ram v. State of H.P ,(1973) 2 SCC 808

22 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much
worse; however is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the
conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot be felt in a
civilized society.

DEFIANCE OF SELF INCRIMINATION

1) So far as rights implicated during the investigation stage is concerned, Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution is relevant. Article 21 states: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.’ Our courts interpreted this Article in
catena of decisions.

2) These judicial pronouncements provide valuable instructions to judicial officers on how to

protect the rights of accused. In order to assure a fair trial, judicial officers are expected to follow
every procedural safeguard and protect every assurance provided by the law to all parties. In the
pursuit of effective criminal justice delivery, identifying suspects becomes paramount. However,
this imperative process is not without its complexities.

3) While seeking the truth, it is essential to treated carefully to ensure that the accused is not
coerced into providing self-incriminating evidence, a concern addressed by the constitutional
safeguard encapsulated in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution

4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory, also states
in Article 14(3) (g) that an accused has the right "not to be compelled to testify against himself or
to confess guilt."

5) Under the Santorin context, this privilege is provided under article 20(3) acts as an umbrella
to protect the accused from the testimonial or any kind of compulsion. It is assumed that, it is the
duty of the state to prove that the crime was committed by the accused and not the accused to
himself prove him to be guilty of offence. Another assumption is that the accused is presumed to
be guilty until and unless proven guilty and lastly, an accused cannot be compelled to be a
witness against himself, he has the right to remain silent

23 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
Issue No. 3) WHETHER THE SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

It is most humbly showeth before honorable court that section 3 of criminal procedure
(Identification act, 2022) is unconstitutional because it abridges and infringes other fundamental
rights and counsel will bring such infringements into light through following points.

SECTION 3 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID

1. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 2022 made a classification concerning the person who
can be compelled to give a 'biological sample'. It states that any person who has been arrested
for an offence against a woman or a child or committed an offence punishable with
imprisonment of seven years or more is required to compulsory furnish their "biological
sample"19
2. Additionally, the court enlarged the scope of "compulsion" to include psychological aspects
such as psychic torture, atmospheric pressure, environmental coercion tiring interrogative
prolixity, overbearing and intimidatory method. It indirectly creates a compulsion on the
accused to give the samples of their body and it not only infringes their right to privacy but
also becomes entitled to self-incrimination under article 20(3). It directly affronts Right to
personal liberty and Life of the accused.
3. The plea submitted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, in flagrant violation of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court, allows excessive, coercive and arbitrary intrusion into the dignity of a
convict as well as of an individual who may be called in for simple questioning, or who is
involved in the pettiest of offences. These provisions constitute a clear attack on 'personal
liberty and clearly fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution and are thus liable to be struck
down.
4. Many of the human rights are concerned with section 3 of this act and it creates a threat for
other fundamental rights and violation of that deprecates the faith of people in legal system it

19
human rights and the criminal procedure (identification) act, 2022: a critical analysis written by dr. Shazia
parween & akshay jain assistant Professor, Department of Human Rights, Jamia Hamdard, Delhi, India * Ph.D.
Scholar at faculty of law, University of Delhi, India DOI: 10.55662/JLSR.2023.9506

24 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
needs to be repealed and certain amendments are needed to be maintained to restore this faith
and bring highest good.

A. STORING AND DISSEMINATING MEASUREMENTS

1. The Act of 2022 not only allows the taking of measurements for the identification of convicts
and some persons but also empowers government agencies to store, preserve, and
disseminate such information. For this purpose, the National Crime Records Bureau
(hereinafter referred to as "NCRB") is the central agency named in the Act that will act as a
repository of information and is authorized to collect, store, preserve, process, share,
disseminate, and destroy the records of the persons concerned.
2. The Act allows the police officer or head warder of the prison to take measurements of the
person convicted or arrested. Such measurements are to be stored in the repository of the
NCRB for 75 years from the date of collection. It enables police to store the measurements of
the accused persons for the period of 75 years which is equals to a lifetime and it is such a
long period.

B. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. The Act of 2022 deals with the collection and storage of sensitive information about
individuals. Therefore, any law that deals with such sensitive personal data must be
constitutionally valid. However, it is argued that it violates Article 14, which protects the
fundamental right to equality for every citizen. Hence, it is necessary to analyze the Act of
2022 on the touchstone of the right to equality.
20
2. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar
observed that the legislative classification must be reasonable to preserve equality. A
classification is reasonable if it fulfils the twin test, i.e., first, the classification must be
founded on intelligible differentia distinguishing one class from another, and second, the
differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
3. The proviso classifies the taking of biological samples based on the age and gender of the
victim. The aim of taking such measurements is to aid the investigative process. However,
the

20
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 1958 AIR 538, 1959 SCR 279

25 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
26 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
Act fails to establish how particularly the "biological sample" of the arrested person will be
more useful to aid the investigation in the case of crimes against a woman or a child or for
any offence punishable with seven years or more, and not in the investigation of other crimes
generally.
4. Rather, carving out the proviso specifically for the biological sample does not make any
sense, as the biological sample is considered to be on par with other measurements when it
comes to aiding the investigation. Therefore, the Act fails to present any reasonable nexus
between classifications based on the age or gender of the victim for the biological sample to
aid the investigation.
5. Section 3 of this act to the police and prison authority to collect measurements. The usage of
the phrase "if so required" in the absence of any legal standards or criteria for assessing such
"requirement" clearly indicates that it will depend on such officials to whom they wish to
compel them to provide measurements, which can be misused as carte blanche without any
provision of grievance redressal.

A similar discretionary power has been granted to the judicial magistrate under Section 5 of the
Act. The use of the word "any person" shows that the magistrate has the power to order any
person (whether arrested or not) to give his measurements based on his expediency, thereby
expanding the scope of the Act. Further, not stating the authority to which the order of collection
r elates may allow the magistrate to include a third elates may allow the magistrate to include a
third party for the collection of measurements in addition to the police or prison staff.

C. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 20 (3) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. Considering the constitutionality of neuro-scientific tests such as narco-analysis or brain

mapping for criminal investigation, the Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka
observed that subjecting the accused to such a test without his consent infringes on his
mental privacy, and the revelations made by the accused during the test would tantamount to
a testimonial compulsion, which is unconstitutional under Article 20(3) that protects the
accused from self-incrimination. 21

21
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974, (2010) 7 SCC 263

27 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
2. Section 3 of the Act without defining the word "behavioral attributes" would subject the term
to numerous interpretations, which may even lead to harsh consequences. As the Act talks
about the compulsory taking of measurements, behavioral attributes may lead to the taking of
measurements by compulsive psychiatric tests, which, on expansive interpretation, may
include compulsive narco-analysis or brain mapping tests, thereby violating the fundamental
right against self-incrimination protected under Article20(3).

D. INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 21- RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The Act stipulates the collection and recording of measurements, which include fingerprints,
footprints, iris and retina scans, and physical and biological samples. These measurements
constitute the personal information of an individual and, therefore, are covered under
informational privacy as observed by the Supreme Court in the Aadhar verdict. Further, the
Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy-I judgment elevates the right to privacy to a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the measurement covered under the Act amounts
to an encroachment on the citizen's fundamental right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court
also observed that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and is subjected to reasonable
restrictions. The Supreme Court, therefore, establishes the fourfold test against which every law
encroaching on the right to privacy must be evaluated. The tests include

 Legitimate aim: it implies that the goal that the state wishes to pursue must be significant
enough to justify the violation of the right to privacy.
 Suitable means: it indicates that appropriate means should have been employed to
achieve the end.
 Necessity: selection of a preferable alternative that achieves the goal in a real and
meaningful way while compromising less on the right of the subject as compared to the
state's measure.
 Proportionality: ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to
achieve them. The objective of the Act of 2022 is to collect and record measurements for
the identification and effective investigation of criminal cases. The Act has a legitimate

28 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
aim as appeared from the objective; however, the same fails to satisfy the other three prongs
22

E. INFINITE RETENTION OF DATA

1. The Act stipulates that the personal data collected shall be retained digitally in the repository
the NCRB for seventy-five years from the date of collection. The compulsory taking of
measurements completely ignored the doctrine of parity and puts the accused of felony and
misdemeanor on the same footing.
2. This results in the storage of personal data for 75 years, even though the person is accused of
committing a petty offence. Therefore, the period of retention is manifestly disproportionate
to the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Further, the Act fails to specify any time
frame within which the records are to be deleted. Though the Act requires the digital
retention of measurement records for 75 years, it does not explicitly mention the destruction
of data after 75 years, which may result in the data being held in perpetuity in the database.
3. Also, the Act makes provision for the deletion of data only in the cases of accused persons
who are released, discharged, or acquitted after exhausting all legal remedies. In the case of
other persons, for example, under Section 5 of the Act of 2022, the magistrate has the power
to order "any person" (for example, a person of interest, including juveniles) to give
measurements. In such a case, though his measurements are compulsorily recorded, since
there is no provision for deletion of data, his measurements will be kept in the database for
perpetuity without any legitimate purpose.
4. Lack of Purpose for the retention and sharing of measurements. The purpose of retention of
such data and sharing with law enforcement agencies is not clear. Records of measurements
can be used as evidence in a court of law or to access other evidence
5. In the latter case, the measurements allow the recording of biometric data such as
fingerprints, iris scans, or retina scans. Such biometric information can be used to access
other personal devices like laptops, cellular phones, etc. to gain private information about the
individual.

22
23 The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 176 JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH Volume 9
Issue 5-ISSN 2455 2437 September-October 2023 www.thelawbrigade

29 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
30 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
6. Such a case would be considered to be the gravest intrusion into the private life of the
individual, severely violating the right to privacy. Further, sharing such personal information
with other agencies without the informed consent of the person concerned also infringes on
his right to privacy. Moreover, no safeguard or guidelines have been provided in the Act for
sharing such personal data. There is a possibility that the NCRB may link such data with
other already existing databases, like the Indian version of the Automated Fingerprint
Identification System ("AFIS") known as FACTS and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network
& Systems ("CCTNS"). Also, the prospect of private parties having access to such records
cannot be refuted, as NCRB outsources its projects on a regular basis to private contractors.
7. In summary. The challenge under Article 20(3) is valid only when eyewitnesses have prior of
the accused, and the trial court heavily relies on the Test Identification Parade as evidence for
conviction. The implications of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) substantial Act, 2022,
on Articles 14, 20(3), and the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Asserting
that the implementation of this act directly compromises citizens' privacy rights. 23
8. Privacy is a cherished fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, safeguarding the
personal liberties of citizens. However, the enactment of "The Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022"(1) has sparked concerns about potential infringements on these
rights. The act allows for the collection, storage, processing, and dissemination of sensitive
data such as fingerprints, retinal scans, and biological samples, surpassing the scope of the
previous "Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920".
9. The legislature's objective behind this act is to bolster conviction rates and expedite fair trials
in the criminal justice system. The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, raises
significant concerns regarding the infringement of the right to privacy and the doctrine of
proportionality under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which was laid down in Justice
KS Puttaswamy v Union of India24.The Act's provisions lack suitability, as there is no
demonstrated rational nexus between the Act's broad scope and the class of persons it covers,
which includes convicts, detainees, arrestees, and those ordered to give security for
maintaining peace and good behavior as mentioned in Section 3. Additionally, the Act's

23
The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group 176 JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH Volume 9 Issue
5-ISSN 2455 2437 September-October 2023 www.thelawbrigad

24
KS Puttaswamy v Union of India,2017 10 SCC 1

31 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
overbroad coverage fails to satisfy the necessity requirement, as it includes individuals
without considering the nature and severity of the offense or their relevance to an ongoing
investigation.
10. The Act's extensive data collection and storage provisions could result in individuals being
under constant government observation, effectively putting their lives on hold and impacting
their right to live with dignity, as established by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India25. The Act's implementation also risks weakening safeguards by assigning
data collection to lower-level officials, leading to possible abuses of power. Furthermore, the
Act's provisions could result in constant government observation, impacting an individual's
right to privacy and personal liberty.
11. These Constitutional concerns necessitates careful scrutiny and revision of the Act to align
with constitutional concerns necessitate careful scrutiny and revision demental rights and
principles of and implementation. Proportionality to ensure a balanced and constitutionally
(Identification) Act 2022 infringes fundamental rights of the accused persons which makes it
unconstitutional or constitutionally invalid.

ISSUE NO. 4 WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF A DIRECTION TO REFRAIN FROM

PUBLISHING DETAILS OF A CRIMINAL CASE AND STORIES ABOUT THE
ACCUSED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE?

It is most humbly submitted before honorable court that issuance of direction to refrain from
publishing details of a criminal case and stories about the accused is constitutionally permissible
because the vital gap between the convict and accused is completely overlooked by the media by
keeping at stake the cardinal principles of 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty and guilt
beyond reasonable doubt'. Along with investigation, it includes forming public opinion against
the suspect or the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case.

A. PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY IS INJURIOUS TO JUSTICE AND REPUTATION OF

ACCUSED

1. Media overlooks the primary idea that governs trial in India which is Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty. Now what is being observed is a separate
investigation

32 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
25
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,1978 AIR 597

33 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
done by the media itself which is called a media trial and Impact of television and print
media coverage on a case by an attempt made by the media of holding the accused guilty
even prior to his trial and regardless of any verdict in the court of law.
2. This affects the perception of public at large because media reaches out to the mass promptly
and, it includes forming public opinion against the suspect or the accused even before the
court takes cognizance of the case.
3. There needs to be a fair balance between the state and the accused. In State of U.P. v.
26
Naresh and Ors the Supreme Court observed "every accused is presumed to be innocent
unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right subject to the
statutory exceptions. The said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India."
4. Since pre-trial publicity can derail a fair and a speedy trial, the judiciary has to balance the
competing fundamental rights. While the freedom of speech and expression of the media, the
right to know of the people need to be protected and promoted, the right to fair trial of the
accused needs to be secured and guaranteed.
5. Media not only spreads information but it also creates a mental expression of the accused on
the public and in above case media publishing news related to accused even before the court
gave its final verdict not only infringes his privacy but also puts a mark of being guilty even
before its proven the court of law.
6. In Kali Ram v. State of HP27 the Supreme Court observed "it is no doubt that wrongful
acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much
worse; however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the
conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot be felt in
a civilized society.
7. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)28, a reasoned judgment diminished the chances
of appeal, and reduces the courts overload. Appreciation of evidence must be rational and
dispassionate. In every criminal trial the degree of probability of guilt has to be much higher,
almost amounting to certainty; and if there is the slightest reasonable or probable chance of

26
State of U.P. v. Naresh and ors ,(2001) 4 SCC 324
27
Kali Ram v. State of HP27,(1973) 2 SCC 808
28
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1

34 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
innocence of an accused the benefit must be given to him. "Justice must not only be done, but
be seen to be done."
8. This violates the rights of accused especially right to privacy and fails to strike the balance
between right to freedom of expression and it creates a conflict with right to reputation and
all information getting promulgated discerns the accused as crooked criminal. Dissemination
of information through media trial in above case in which the final verdict of the apex court
is pending is non - negotiable because it violates the right to privacy and reputation of the
accused.
9. In Sanjay dutt case 29the media portrayed the picture of Sanjay Dutt as a terrorist, which was
later held by the Court that he was not accused of those charges. After this incident, being an
actor, he had to suffer a lot of problems and outrage and his reputation got depleted.

B. MEDIA TRIALS - HAMPERING AND HAULTS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

1. Information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one can't get it
back in and once the information is in the public domain it will never go away. Trial by
media has been held to be the very antithesis of the rule of law. In cases of crimes relating to
sexual offences, a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation, can lead to miscarriage
of justice.
2. Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. RJ. Gandhi30 cautioned that when a sensational
criminal case comes to be tried before the court, public curiosity experiences an apsurge. It
often leads the newspaper to compete with each other in publishing their own version of the
facts. They even employ their own reporters to unearth details, not otherwise available.
3. Thirst for sensational news is a natural human desire and enthusiasm on the part of the press
is no doubts, understandable but this investigatory journalize has its own risks. The law
though does not prohibit it in abstract, it does require the players in this activity, to keep
within certain limits
4. So far as rights implicated during the investigation stage is concerned, Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution is relevant. Article 21 states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Our courts interpreted this
Article in

35 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
29
Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, CA 1834-35 of 1994
30
State of Maharashtra v. RJ. Gandhi, AIR 1997 SC 3986

36 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
catena of decisions. These judicial pronouncements provide valuable instructions to judicial
officers on how to protect the rights of accused. In order to assure a fair trial, judicial officers
are expected to follow every procedural safeguard and protect every assurance provided by
the law to all parties.
5. Media acts as a public court or a Janata court where they decide the culprit soon before the
commencement of the proceedings. The media by reporting consistently on a person who is
convicted in a trial forces the public to make perception for that person as an accused, which
results in the guilt of the accused before proceedings even begin."31

Law Commission 200th Report

In this report under the Chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannath a Rao in August, 2006, the
following recommendations had been made:

 To prohibit the publication of anything that is prejudicial to the reputation if accused- a

restriction which shall from the mine of the arrest.
 The starting point of a criminal case should not be from the filing of the charge sheet but
from the time of arrest of an accused. The perception behind such an amendment is that it
would prevent prejudicing or prejudging the case.
 To address the damaging effect on the administration of justice of the sensationalized
news reports.
 The High Court is empowered to direct the postponement of the telecast or the
publication in criminal cases and to prevent the media from restoring to such a telecast or
publication.
6. Hence, the trial by the media is not as fair as they have no power to interfere and to force the
public to make an opinion against an individual. The media by doing the pre- trial interferes
in the procedure and mechanism of the judiciary which is not permissible under any law or
act.
7. The counsel pending that media trials should be prohibited because the final verdict of the
court is still pending and media has a very big role in shaping up the final verdict people. The
information that is being broadcasted through the various forms of media is such that it either
inclines towards showing a positive image or a negative image altogether.

37 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
31
Sahara group v. SEBI ,AIR 2012 SC 3829

38 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
8. Showing just one side of the coin is unfair and can create a bias in the minds of the people
who consume such information. Classifying the representation of the justice system in just
black or white, i.e., negative or positive, is not possible. It can never be completely positive
or completely negative. It is usually grey, a mix of positive and negative in this case. Each
pillar of democracy on which the country stands strong has own positive and negative act.
9. Portrayal of just one of those types of acts would be deceptive and can cause false and
uninformed opinions. The media has the responsibility to showcase the truth, not exaggerate
and not spread false news. It also has the responsibility to showcase only credible news. The
freedom of press in the context of trial of criminal cases came to be considered by the
Supreme Court of India in the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal
Gandhi.32 This Court expressed its displeasure over the phenomenon, which it called as 'trial
by press, electronic media or public agitation'. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005
when faced with such a situation in the case of M. P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal 33took a
similar view and echoed these lines: "...This type of articles appearing in the media would
certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution
the publisher, editor and journalists who were responsible for the said article against
indulging in such trial by media when the issue sub-judice."
10. Media should be used in effective manner and act as a helping hand in the process of
administrating justice and harmonious relationship should be maintained because it has
strong influence in shaping the opinion of public at large.
11. Many a times, due to hype given by media, an innocent is pronounced or even the guilty
may go scot free because of the way he has been portrayed by the media. The counsel here
wants to conclude that freedom of press should not hampered but it should be regulated. The
media house should focus on delivering the reality or truth to every person.

32
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi ,AIR 1997 SC 3986
33
M. P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, ,C.A 219 of 2005

39 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT
PRAYER

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

1. Declare TIP as an invalid and inadmissible evidence in the present case.

2. Declare conduction of TIP as constitutionally invalid.

3. Declare Section 3 of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 constitutionally invalid.

4. Pass the Appeal for issuance of a direction to refrain from publishing details of a criminal case
and stories about the accused.

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: S/d …………

APPELLANT

(Through Council)

40 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT