








Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This moot describes section 363, 366 and 376 of Indian penal code
Typology: Assignments
1 / 14
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
State of Rajasthan (COMPLAINANT) VS. X (RESPONDENT) CASE CONCERNING ABOUT KIDNAPPING, FORCED MARRIAGE AND RAPE UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: MR. SHEIKH INAM NEETA SAINI ASSISTANT PROFESSOR BA.LLB (H) SSLG SEMESTER(III)
Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................................................... Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................................ Statement Of Facts...................................................................................................................................................... Issues Raised............................................................................................................................................................... Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................................................. Prayer..........................................................................................................................................................................
The Honorable Session court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973^1. (^1) Commitment of case to court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. - when in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the court of Session, he shall- (a). Commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made; (b). Subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of the trial; (c). send to that court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d). notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the court of Session.
On 1 September 2020 at about 1:15 hours the prosecutrix mother found that her daughter was missing. On enquiring, she found that the accused had come to meet him and had a talk with her. After that, they ( accused and prosecutrix) moves towards the market one after the other respectively. When prosecutrix's father enquired from the accused's uncle, he came to know that both of them went towards Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan bus stand. The accused uncle's son also saw both of them together at Indra Gandhi Nagar bus stand. When the prosecutrix father reached there, he could not find any of them. F.I. R was registered on 5 September 2020 at Indiragandhi Nagar police station. On 7 September 2020, both, accused and Prosecutrix had surrendered before the Police Their statements were recorded and Prosecutrix was sent to medical examination because the age of the Prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age as per the complainant. The investigation revealed sufficient evidence against the accused and hence he was arrested on 30 November 2020. Accused claimed that he was innocent. Both, accused and Prosecutrix was in love and got married on 9 March 2020 as per Hindu rite. The marriage got registered by the marriage of registrar at Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. So, he maintained that it is a false case against him. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the session’s court, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
It is not necessary that the girl should be in physical possession of the guardian. It is enough if it is under a continuous control which is for the first time terminated by the act complained off. She is still said to be in legal possession of her parents. She can be said to be in no longer in the keeping or control of the lawful guardian when the facts disclosed that she was either driven away from parental roof as was the case in Pandyaram Sastri vs Emperor^4 , or voluntarily abandoned the control of the guardian on account of the I'll treatment as was in the case of Southerland Weekly Reporter. It is clearly visible from the facts that the prosecutrix was neitherr driven away from parental roof nor she voluntarily abandoned the house on account of I'll treatment of his parents. Thus the accused should be liable for the offence of kidnapping. INTENTION It is humbly contended to the submitted to the court that it is clearly known that in order to constitute a crime intention is an essential ingredient but, In State vs. Sulekh Chand it is clearly mentioned by the court that, " the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 consists solely of taking a minor from the keeping of lawful guardian and no intention need to be established". AGE It is humbly contended to the court that the prosecutrix kidnapped was under the age of 16 years as mentioned in the First Information Report and it is sufficient to constitute the offence of kidnapping. In Emperor vs Ismail Sayad Saheb Mujawar^5 , it was held by the court that to constitute the offence of kidnapping a minor from lawful guardianship penalized by this section is not necessary to prove that the minor is under the age specified in section 361. CONSENT It is most humbly submitted that in case of minor consent of father is main ingredient and such consent must be legally obtained consent. (^4) Pandyaram Sastri vs Emperor, 16 I.C. 166 (^5) Emperor vs Ismail Sayad Saheb Mujawar, A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 417
''Whoever except in case provided for in sub section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.'' Thus to constitute the offence of rape:
Wherefore in the light of the Issues Raised, Argument Advanced and Authorities Cited, the Honorable Session Court may be pleased to :