SHUBHAM SINGH, LC-1

Section G, RN: 246475

ENR: 22310806714

LB-501 : MOOT COURT, MOCK

TRIAL, AND INTERNSHIP

Before The Supreme Court of India

Under Article 137 of The Constitution of India

Network Against Gender Bias

(NAGB).…...…………………………………APPELLANT

Versus

Amrit Singh………………………….…. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 LIST OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. 3

2 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ..................................................................................... 4
3 STATEMENT OF JURURISDICTION ....................................................................... 5
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ 6
5 ISSUES RAISED ........................................................................................................... 7
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................... 8
1 Whether the death penalty should be restored under the “rarest of rare” doctrine, in
light of the mitigating factors and circumstances of the case? ...................................... 9
1.1 What is the doctrine of the “rarest of rare” case? ...................................................... 9
1.2 The doctrine of rarest of rare cases cannot be applied in the present case to award death
penalty. ....................................................................................................................... 12
2 Whether the impugned sentence used by the Supreme Court is an accurate and
reasonable observation in the context of the facts of the case...................................... 13
2.1 The impugned sentence is an accurate and reasonable observation. ........................ 13
2.2 The impugned sentence shall not be expunged from the impugned judgement. ...... 15
7 PRAYER ...................................................................................................................... 17

2
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Indian Cases
1 Absar Alam v. State of Bihar, (2012) 2 SCC 728 ........................................................... 13
2 Amit v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 93 ............................................................. 12
3 Amit v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 107 ....................................................................... 14
4 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 ........................................................ 9
5 Dagdu v. State of Mahaarshtra, (1977) 3 SCC 68........................................................... 13
6 Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635 .............................................. 13
7 Karnail Singh v State of Haryana & Ors., 2024 INSC 424 ............................................... 5
8 Lehna v. State of Haryana , (2002) 3 SCC 76 ................................................................ 13
9 Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 ...................................................... 10
10 Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460, (2019) 12 SCC
460 .......................................................................................................................... 11, 12
11 Smt.Triveniben and others v State of Gujarat and others, (1989) 1 MLJ (Crl) 194 ......... 10
12 State of UP v. Mohammad Naim, (1964) 1 Cri LJ 546 ................................................... 15

Indian Statutes
13 The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023) ........................................ 9

Rules
14 The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 ...................................................................................... 5

3
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVATION FULL-FORM

& And

Art. Article

BNSS Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

cl. Clause

etc. Et cetera

Hon`ble Honourable

id. Ibidem

No. Number

Ors. Others

p. Page

Para Paragraph

pt. Point

Sec. Section

i.e. That is

u/a Under Article

u/s Under Section

4
 STATEMENT OF JURURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 for the review of the
judgement delivered by this Hon’ble Court on 10.11.2023. It is humbly submitted by the
Respondent that the present petition is not maintainable.
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that the Review petition in criminal matter shall not
be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.1 Further this
Hon’ble Court in Karnail Singh v State of Haryana & Ors.2 held that the review petition is
maintainable only in the following circumstances:-
a. there is a material error in the judgement/order, and
b. the material error is manifest on the face of the order, and
c. the material error undermines soundness of order or results in a miscarriage of justice.
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner in the present petition has failed to satisfy the above
tests and therefore present petition is liable to be dismissed.

1
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XLVII, Rule.1.
2
2024 INSC 424
5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Incident on November 3, 2020:

On the evening of November 3, 2020, Kiran Kaur, an 8-year-old girl, visited her cousin’s house
but never returned home. She was last seen with Amrit Singh, a 30-year-old neighbor, holding
his hand as they walked together. Her body was later discovered in an agricultural field
belonging to Amrit Singh. The medical report confirmed that she had been raped, and the cause
of death was excessive bleeding due to the injuries sustained during the assault.
The autopsy report highlighted multiple contusions and abrasions on her body, particularly on
her neck and face. However, the primary cause of death was excessive blood loss, not
strangulation. The injuries were severe but not inflicted with the intention to kill.

2. Lower Courts’ Verdicts:

The trial court convicted Amrit Singh of rape and murder, sentencing him to death penalty. The
High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence, citing the brutality of the crime.

3. High Court:
On appeal, the High Court upheld both the conviction and the death sentence.

4. Supreme Court’s Judgment:

On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the death sentence to life
imprisonment, stating that the death occurred as a consequence of excessive bleeding and not
due to an intentional act of killing. The court noted that the case did not meet the threshold of
a “rarest of rare” case warranting the death penalty.

5. Review Petition:
Following public outrage, the Network Against Gender Bias (NAGB) filed a review petition
seeking the restoration of the death penalty and the deletion of the phrase “momentary lapse”
from the judgment, which they argued downplayed the severity of the crime.

6
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the death penalty should be restored under the “rarest of rare” doctrine, in
light of the mitigating factors and circumstances of the case ?

2. Whether the impugned sentence used by the Supreme Court is an accurate and
reasonable observation in the context of the facts of the case.

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1

Restoration of Death Penalty:

The Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the law when it reduced the sentence to
life imprisonment. The death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, as
defined by Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh. The court’s judgment appropriately considered
the absence of premeditation and other mitigating factors, which make life imprisonment a
more proportionate punishment in this case.

ISSUE 2

“Momentary Lapse” Justification:

The phrase “momentary lapse” used by the Supreme Court accurately reflects the impulsive
nature of Amrit Singh’s actions. While the crime was brutal, the absence of premeditated intent
to kill distinguishes this case from others that warrant the death penalty. The court has broad
discretion in its interpretation of facts, as upheld in Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, and
the use of this phrase does not trivialize the crime.

8
 ARGUMENTS ANVANCED

1 WHETHER THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE RESTORED UNDER THE

“RAREST OF RARE” DOCTRINE, IN LIGHT OF THE MITIGATING
FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE?

1.1 What is the doctrine of the “rarest of rare” case?

1.1.1 Indian criminal jurisprudence has adopted the doctrine of rarest of rare cases to limit
death penalties. Death penalties should not be awarded in a mechanical manner and as a matter
of rule or to satisfy the anger of the public, but only when the court is of the sincere opinion
that any other punishment short of the death penalty would not give justice to the victim and
the society at large. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab3 a reference was made to the five-
judge bench of this court for considering the constitutional validity of the death penalty. In this
case, a doctrine of “rarest of rare” was laid down by this Hon’ble Court. In a dissenting
judgement, Bhagwati J. has observed that the death penalty is unconstitutional and violative of
Arts. 14 and 21. This court said that the death penalty shall be awarded in the rarest of rare
cases when an alternative option before the court is closed.
1.1.2 Further legislature has imposed special safeguard to refrain courts from awarding death
sentence in every case in an ordinary course of business. Sec. 393 (3) 4of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter BNSS) reads as follows,
“393. Language and contents of judgment.
xxx
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative,
with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state
the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special
reasons for such sentence.”
BNSS mandates that when awarding the sentence of the death penalty court has to record
special reasons to justify qualifying the offence committed by the accused attract such penalty.
When giving a sentence on conviction BNSS also mandates that the accused side shall be heard
before passing the sentence. Relevant provision5 is as follows,
“258. Judgment of acquittal or conviction.

3
(1980) 2 SCC 684
4
The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Sec. 393 (3).
5
The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Sec. 235.
9
 (1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment
in the case…
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the
provisions of section 401, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass
sentence on him according to law.”
1.1.3 In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 6 the Hon’ble Apex court has curled out following
guidelines from the Bacchan Singh (Supra) case.
1. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in the gravest cases of
extreme culpability.
2. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also require to
be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’.
3. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death
sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and
provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life
cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of
the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
4. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in
doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just
balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
before the option is exercised.
1.1.4 When the matter again came before this court regarding the death penalty in
Smt.Triveniben7 the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed death penalty need not be imposed in every
case of murder instead before applying the death penalty this court laid some guidelines as
follows,
1 Circumstances of offender along with circumstances of crime shall be considered.
2 Death penalty shall be imposed only when it appears life imprisonment is inadequate
punishment.
3 A balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in
doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just

6
(1983) 3 SCC 470
7
Smt.Triveniben and others v State of Gujarat and others, (1989) 1 MLJ (Crl) 194
10
 balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before
the option is exercised.
Court further stated when applying above points two questions shall be answered,
a. Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of
imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
b. Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose a death
sentence even after according to maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances
which speak in favour of the offender?
1.1.5 Broadline theories of punishment in criminal jurisprudence are,
a. To restore law and order in society.
b. Deterring criminals from committing any offence.
c. Prevention from convicts committing further crimes.
d. Reforming the offender by giving the convict a chance to rectify his mistake.
In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra 8
the Hon’ble Apex court has
emphasised on the importance of considering the possibility of rehabilitation.
“45. The law laid down by various decisions of this Court clearly and unequivocally
mandates that the probability (not possibility or improbability or impossibility) that a
convict can be reformed and rehabilitated in society must be seriously and earnestly
considered by the courts before awarding the death sentence. This is one of the mandates
of the “special reasons” requirement of Section 354(3) CrPC and ought not to be taken
lightly since it involves snuffing out the life of a person.”
In Rajendra Pradhanrao (Supra) the court has gone one step further and also held that the onus
is on the prosecution to show that the person's antecedent and conduct is such that convict
cannot be reformed.
1.1.6 In light of the aforementioned authorities the death penalty for the first offender in
a crime committed due to momentary lapse defeats the whole purpose of the doctrine of “rarest
of rare” case. No person is born criminal, the person's reaction or action on a fateful moment
changes his fate from a normal law-abiding citizen to an offender. Hence, the counsel submits
before this court that before awarding the death penalty following points must be considered:
a. Is the convicted person a first-time offender?
b. Circumstances in which the crime took place and the accused’s reason behind it.
Whether the person has planned the crime meticulously?

8
(2019) 12 SCC 460, para. 45.
11
 c. Is there any chance of the accused being able to be reformed and brought back to
society as a law-abiding citizen?
d. Are all other alternative forms of punishment inadequate in the circumstance at hand?
1.2 The doctrine of rarest of rare cases cannot be applied in the present case to award
death penalty.
1.2.1 The convicted accused Mr. Amrit Singh has no prior criminal antecedents. His behaviour
towards the victim was not of such nature as to say he habitually had illicit relations with the
victim. The prosecution's story shows that the relationship between the convicted accused and
the victim was a relationship of trust. Further, the prosecution has not alleged that the accused
acted with a meticulous plan or could not show any pre-planning by the accused for committing
rape or murder. Fact that the accused is a first-time offender and the action of the accused was
not a pre-planned action but happened in the moment, the present case can not be said to be
the rarest of a rare case.
1.2.2 The victim’s death was due to heavy loss of blood and it was not the intention of
the accused to kill the victim. The accused had not pre-planned to rape the victim, but the
momentary lapse of control on the part of the accused resulted in the rape. Therefore, the
accused has not acted in a pre-mediated manner and the prosecution has failed to show that the
actions of the accused were such that the accused could not be rehabilitated.
1.2.3 In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra 9 the accused was convicted of
raping and murdering a 3 years old girl, but the Apex Court declined to award the death penalty
on the grounds that the evidence against the accused is circumstantial evidence, no criminal
antecedent was present against the accused and the possibility of reform of the accused. In Amit
v. State of Maharashtra10 the accused was charged with rape and murder of the 11-12-year-
old girl. The charge against the accused was proven only on the basis that the accused and
victim were last seen together. The Apex Court held that the accused was not liable for the
death penalty as the accused is young, there was no previous history of the heinous crime and
there was no evidence that the accused may be a danger to the society if death penalty is not
awarded.
1.2.4 In the present case, the prosecution proved the charge based on the accused and victim
were last seen together and the charge was proven based on circumstantial evidences. There is
no evidence present to show that the accused poses any danger to the society if death penalty

9
(2019) 12 SCC 460
10
(2003) 8 SCC 93
12
is not awarded. Further, the accused does not have any criminal background let alone the
history of heinous crime.
1.2.5 Therefore, it is humbly submitted to this court that the present case does not come under
the “rarest of rare” doctrine and the death penalty shall not be awarded to the accused.

2 WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SENTENCE USED BY THE SUPREME COURT IS

AN ACCURATE AND REASONABLE OBSERVATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

2.1 The impugned sentence is an accurate and reasonable observation.

2.1.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court when required can exercise the jurisdiction in appeal and
decide the quantum of punishment if the trial court or high court did not properly adduce
material and facts of the case. The Supreme Court in case of deciding the quantum of
punishment can permit submission of materials under Section 258 (2) of BNSS. 11
2.1.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lehna v. State of Haryana12 held that when the offence is
committed in an impulsive manner without any premeditation the death penalty is not
appropriate. In Absar Alam v. State of Bihar 13 it was held that, “mental condition or state of
mind of the accused is one of the factors that can be taken into account in considering the
question of sentence”. In Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana14 the Supreme Court has laid
down factors for consideration while awarding the sentence. The relevant portion of the
judgement is as follows,
“23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before
awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in
character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The
relevant factors are as under:
(a) Motive or previous enmity;
(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;
(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;
(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;
(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

11
Dagdu v. State of Mahaarshtra, (1977) 3 SCC 68, Para. 81.
12
(2002) 3 SCC 76, Para. 29.
13
(2012) 2 SCC 728
14
(2009) 15 SCC 635
13
 (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which
the blow was inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;
(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death but the death was because of shock;
(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;
(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused
had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets
proper medical treatment?” (Emphasis Added)
2.1.3 In Amit v. State of U.P.15, the accused was charged with and convicted of Kidnapping,
rape and murder of a 3-year-old child while justifying the life imprisonment instead of death
sentence the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “There is no evidence to show that he had
committed the offences of kidnapping, rape or murder on any earlier occasion. There is nothing
on evidence to suggest that he is likely to repeat similar crimes in future.”
2.1.4 In the present case the Court while considering whether the punishment imposed by the
learned trial court was proportionate and whether the trial court had considered relevant factors
had to consider the motive of the accused and whether the crime took place in the spur of the
moment. The mental condition of the accused and whether the accused has premediated the
crime are some of the most important factors in determining the quantum of punishment as
well as are important in deciding whether the case is “rarest of rare” case. While considering
these factors the Hon’ble Court observed “Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature,
in our opinion, was, thus, improper. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a rarest of rare
cases. The manner in which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a
momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place.” When the
remark “momentary lapse” is read together in the context it is apparent that the remark was
necessary and reasonable remark while giving reasoning to the conclusion arrived by the court.
The court rightly observed that there was no previous antecedent or premeditation by the
accused, therefore what transpired on a fateful day was nothing but an action in spur of
the moment or momentary lapse on behalf of the accused.

15
(2012) 4 SCC 107
14
2.1.5 Therefore. It is humbly submitted that the impugned sentence is the reasonable and
necessary observation by the Court.
2.2 The impugned sentence shall not be expunged from the impugned judgement.
2.2.1 In State of UP v. Mohammad Naim16 on the expunging observation made by a judicial
officer, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that,
“11. …If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it
is this : the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be
maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and
fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even byt his Court. At the
same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrates
must be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and restraint. It is not infrequent
that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has
been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against
persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in
cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct
is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself;
(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct, justifying the
remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral
part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial
pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety,
moderation and reserve. ” (Emphasis Added)
This test was applied by this hon’ble Court in numerous occasions while deciding whether a
particular observation shall be expunged or not including in R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K.
Srinivasan, (1975) 2 SCC 466 and S.K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju, (1987) 2 SCC 109.
2.2.2 Applying the this test on the facts and circumstances of the present case will point that
the impugned phrase is not to be disturbed in the impugned judgement. The phrase shall not be
read in isolation as pointed outer earlier. When this phrase is read in context it is apparent that
the observation was made by the Hon’ble Court while deciding whether a particular case
satisfies “rarest of rare” doctrine. While considering the same various factors need to be
considered including mental state, motive and intention of the accused and whether the accused
has committed the crime with preplanning. Based on the evidence adduced in the trial the
conviction of the accused was based on circumstantial evidence or there was no evidence

16
(1964) 1 Cri LJ 546
15
showing the preplanning by the accused. The prosecution has also not established any previous
illicit conduct by the accused toward the victim. Further, the prosecution has not brought any
material on record to show that the accused has any criminal antecedent or his previous
character is such that not awarding the death penalty would be harmful to society.
2.2.3 The Hon’ble Court while considering all these circumstances and evidence on record
observed that the accused has done the crime in the spur of the moment or due to “momentary
lapse on his behalf”. The observation forms part of the reasoning of the conclusion arrived
at by the Hon’ble Court. Further, the evidence on record justifies the observation made by the
Hon’ble Court.
2.2.4 Therefore, the observation by the Hon’ble Court “The manner in which the deceased was
raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing
a lonely girl at a secluded place” shall not be removed from the judgement.

16
 PRAYER

On behalf of the Respondent, the counsel humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court that, in light
of the above-mentioned facts, circumstances, arguments advanced and authorities cited the
Court may,
1 Dismiss the present review application/petition and uphold this Hon’ble court’s order/
judgement of commuting the sentence of the Respondent to Life Imprisonment, and
2 Decline any prayer for deletion of the sentence “The manner in which the deceased was
raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of Appellant,
seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place”, and
3 Pass any other order to this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice.
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf the Respondent

17