TEAM CODE: D
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION,2025 OF
SURESWAR DUTTA LAW COLLEGE,MOURIGRAM ,HOWRAH
IN THE COURT OF LD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SEESION JUDGE (POCSO SPECIAL COURT)
AT HOWRAH
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT,2012
IN THE MATTER OF
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL…………………………………(COMPLAINANT )
V.
ANISH BHATTACHARYA…………………………………………. (ACCUSED)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
1
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
▪ LIST OF ABBREVIATION 3
▪ INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
▪ STATEMENT OF 5
JURISDICTION
▪ STATEMENT OF FACTS 6-7
▪ ISSUES RAISED 8
▪ SUMMARY OF 9-11
ARGUMENTS
▪ ADVANCED ARGUMENTS 12-16
▪ PRAYER 17
2
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
ABBERVIATIONS EXPANSION
Hon’ble Honourable
& And
AIR All India Reporter
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
V. Versus
Sec. Section
U/S Under Section
Art. Article
SCC Supreme Court Reports
FIR First Information Report
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
I.O Investigating Officer
JJ Act Juvenile Justice (care and protection of
children)Act
Accd. Accused
Complt. Complainant
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
3
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF STATUTES
❖ The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012
❖ The Indian Penal Code, 1860
❖ Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015
❖ The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
❖ The Constitution of India
LIST OF CASES
➢ Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329
➢ Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808
➢ Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443
➢ Rajoo v. State of M.P. (2008) 15 SCC 133
➢ State v. Ramesh Chand 2017 SCC
➢ Subhash v. State of Haryana (2011) 2 SCC 534
➢ G. Ramesh v. State 2014 SCC
➢ Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. 2020 SCC
➢ Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77
➢ Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
➢ Sahid Hossain Biswas v. State of West Bengal (2017)
➢ Shri Deoraj Dewan v. State of West Bengal
➢ Gobinda Bag v. State of West Bengal
➢ Santosh Prasad and Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2020 SC 1306
➢ Bijoy v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (1) CHN (CAL) 38
➢ Rajesh v. state of Haryana 2019
➢ State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393)
➢ Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 260
LIST OF BOOKS
o Law of Evidence, Batuk Lal
o Child Abuse and Protection Laws, Dr. Gaurav Kumar
o Law relating to protection of children from sexual offences, Dr.N.V
o Code of Criminal Procedure R.V. Kelkar
o Criminal Law – Volume II (Indian Penal Code) Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
LIST OF LEGAL DATABASES
▪ All India Reporter
▪ Manupatra
▪ Live Law
▪ Indian Kanoon
4
➢
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel on behalf of the accused humbly submits In the COURT OF LD.
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SEESION JUDGE (POCSO SPECIAL COURT) that the
accused have appeared in the session court who have invoked under section 8
and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)Act,2012.
5
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Background and Employment
Mr. Anish Bhattacharya is a qualified and dedicated primary school
teacher who was previously employed in Bhubaneshwar, Odisha,
alongside his wife, Mrs. Shweta Mullick, a Computer Teacher in the same
school. Due to his father’s sudden health deterioration, Mr. Bhattacharya
relocated to Kolkata on 15th July 2023 to care for his ailing father. His wife
remained in Bhubaneshwar temporarily to complete her notice period.
2. Joining School in Howrah
Mr. Bhattacharya secured employment in a reputed school in Howrah
after qualifying through an interview on 5th August 2024. He joined as a
teacher on 10th August 2024 and quickly gained the affection and respect
of his students due to his engaging teaching style and supportive nature.
3. Disciplinary Incident with a Student
On 5th December 2024, during a class session, Mr. Bhattacharya found a
student, Radhika Agarwal of Class IV, using a mobile phone. She appeared
to be sharing content with another student. In adherence to school policy,
Mr. Bhattacharya confiscated the phone and instructed Radhika to inform
her parents about the incident and attend school with them the next day.
However, the matter escalated unexpectedly when Radhika’s parents
accused Mr. Bhattacharya of mentally harassing the child. Despite his
explanation and denial of any malintent, he was compelled to issue an
apology due to the influence of the parents, who were also members of
the school’s Governing Body.
4. Incident on 2nd April 2025
On 2nd April 2025, around 3:00 p.m., Mr. Bhattacharya found Radhika
crying outside the school gate, unattended for nearly an hour. As a
responsible teacher concerned for the safety of a minor, and finding no
school staff or guardian nearby, he offered to drop her home. Radhika
6
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
voluntarily shared her address, which Mr. Bhattacharya verified from her
school diary. During the ride, he attempted to comfort the child, who
appeared distressed, by offering food and engaging in conversation. At no
point was any physical abuse or inappropriate conduct intended or carried
out. He received a phone call from Radhika’s father around 5:00 p.m.,
during which the father became hostile and accusatory. Mr. Bhattacharya
promptly dropped Radhika home around 5:30 p.m. without any further
engagement.
5.Arrest and Proceedings
Later that night, at approximately 10:15 p.m., police officers arrived at Mr.
Bhattacharya’s residence and arrested him on allegations of mental and physical abuse
of a minor, including inappropriate touching, under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Mr. Bhattacharya maintains his
complete innocence and asserts that his actions were driven by concern for the child’s
safety and well-being. He has been cooperating with the investigation and was remanded
to police custody, followed by judicial custody. The charge sheet was submitted on 17th
April 2025, and charges were framed on 28th April 2025.
The case of State of West Bengal vs. Anish Bhattacharya is listed in the court of LD.
Additional District and Session Judge (POCSO special court) at Howrah for final hearing
on 19th May 2025.
HENCE, THE PRESENT MATTER RESTS BEFORE THE COURT
7
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
ISSUES RAISED
I. Whether the actions of the accused, Anish Bhattacharya, as alleged by
the complainant, amount to sexual assault or sexual harassment under
Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012.
II. Whether the accused’s actions, including offering food and driving the
complainant home, were done in a manner that is consistent with his
role as a responsible teacher and mentor.
III. Whether the victim’s emotional distress and fear, as alleged by her
parents, were the result of factors other than the accused’s actions.
IV. Whether there is any statement on part of victim which proves guilty of
accused.
V. Whether the accused’s physical contact, such as sitting the complainant
on his lap, was merely an act of reassurance in a moment of distress and
was not intended to be inappropriate or sexual.
8
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
o Whether the actions of the accused, Anish Bhattacharya, as alleged by
the complainant, amount to sexual assault or sexual harassment under
Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012.
It is humbly submitted before the court that this issue challenges the very
foundation of the complainant's allegations. The POCSO Act defines sexual
assault under Section 7 as involving physical contact with sexual intent.
The actions alleged, including offering food and seating the complainant
on the accused's lap, lack any corroborated evidence of sexual intent. The
defense maintains that the act was done in good faith without any sexually
motivated purpose. The victim did not immediately raise an objection nor was
there any physical harm or explicit sexual behavior established. Hence, there is
no offense under Sections 8 or 12.
o Whether the accused’s actions, including offering food and driving the
complainant home, were done in a manner that is consistent with his
role as a responsible teacher and mentor.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the accused found the child
crying after school hours and chose to help her by offering food and
ensuring she reached home safely. As a responsible teacher and in loco
parentis (acting in the role of a parent), his actions were motivated by concern
for the minor. The accused did not use force, coercion, or seclusion with
malice. The situation arose in a public space and was neither secretive nor
manipulative. These actions were taken in good faith and should not be
misconstrued as harassment or assault.
o Whether the victim’s emotional distress and fear, as alleged by her
parents, were the result of factors other than the accused’s actions.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the victim’s reluctance to attend
school or distress may be attributed to various factors, including external
familial pressure, peer behavior, neglect of children by parents like not pick up
her school ,giving phone to young children or misunderstanding. It cannot be
9
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
conclusively linked to the accused’s actions, particularly in the absence of a
direct complaint or psychiatric evidence. There were other external factors or
pre-existing issues that could have contributed to the complainant’s fear and
emotional state.
o Whether there is any statement on part of victim which proves guilty of
accused.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the defense contends that there is
no clear or unambiguous statement made by the victim that directly
establishes the guilt of the accused under Sections 8 or 12 of the POCSO Act.
The victim’s statements are general in nature, lacking specific details of any
sexually explicit act or behavior. The inconsistencies in timing, lack of
spontaneous complaint by the victim, and absence of corroborative testimony
or physical evidence render the victim's statement insufficient to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Santosh Prasad and Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2020 SC 1306 -
The Court acquitted the accused where the victim did not support the
prosecution’s version in her statement, highlighting that no presumption of
guilt can be drawn in absence of direct accusation by the victim herself.
Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 3105- The Supreme Court
reiterated that while the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient to
convict, it must be trustworthy and of sterling quality. In the absence of such
credibility, and when there are no incriminating statements by the victim, the
accused cannot be held guilty.
• Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 3105
• Santosh Prasad and Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 2020 SC 1306
10
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
o Whether the accused’s physical contact, such as sitting the complainant
on his lap, was merely an act of reassurance in a moment of distress and
was not intended to be inappropriate or sexual.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the physical contact (i.e., the
complainant sitting on the accused's lap) was an unintentional act of
reassurance, stemming from the complainant's emotional state. This contact
was not meant to be sexual in nature, and any interpretation of it as such is a
misunderstanding or exaggeration. The complainant had been visibly
distressed, and the accused, trying to console the child, may have allowed her
to sit on his lap in a moment of reassurance. This was not accompanied by any
indecent behavior, nor was it repeated or secretive. Courts have emphasized
that not every physical interaction constitutes sexual assault unless
accompanied by sexual intent, which is absent here.
Rajesh v. state of Haryana 2019 - FIR lodged under section 8 and 12 of
POCSO Act 2012 . The court held that the element of sexual intent was absent .
Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 260- The Supreme Court
stressed the requirement of skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent to attract
charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Although this case was later
clarified, it reinforced the need to establish sexual intent beyond reasonable
doubt.
• Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 260
• Rajesh v. state of Haryana 2019
11
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
❖ Whether the complainant’s allegations are false, exaggerated, or
fabricated, leading to the wrongful implication of the accused.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the complainant’s testimony is
inconsistent or unreliable, and there may be a personal or ulterior motive
behind the false allegations. The accused submits that the narrative built by the
victim and her parents appears exaggerated and possibly influenced by
personal animosity. The lack of timely complaint by the victim and
contradictions in parental statements suggest fabrication. Further, the absence
of independent witnesses or physical evidence undermines the credibility of
the claim. The possibility of a false implication arising from previous
disciplinary incidents involving the complainant adds to the doubt.
Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185
The Supreme Court emphasized that absence of a prompt and direct
complaint from the alleged victim is a factor that courts must consider in
assessing falsity or exaggeration of allegations.
❖ Whether the allegations of mental abuse and harassment under Section
12 of the POCSO Act are substantiated by credible evidence.
It is humbly submitted before the court that Section 12 of the POCSO Act
pertains to sexual harassment, including mental harassment with sexual
overtones. In the present case, there is no expert testimony (such as a child
psychologist) or documentation proving that the complainant suffered mental
trauma due to the accused’s actions. Emotional distress claimed by the parents
is subjective and uncorroborated. there is insufficient evidence to support the
claim of mental abuse, and any emotional distress suffered by the complainant
may have been a result of factors unrelated to the accused’s actions.
The victim has not alleged any sexually explicit remarks, threats, or gestures
that suggest harassment. There is no medical or psychological evaluation by
an expert to show that the victim suffered any diagnosable mental trauma or
abuse. The statement of the child, even if taken at face value, does not satisfy
the threshold required to invoke Section 12, as there is no element of
harassment with sexual overtones.
• Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185
12
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
Bijoy v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (1) CHN (CAL) 38
The Calcutta High Court held that in absence of any overt act of sexual nature
or mental abuse supported by evidence, mere presence or proximity does not
attract penal provisions under POCSO. Allegations must be specific, not vague
or inferential.
Section 12 is generally invoked in cases of continued harassment, repeated
interactions, or manipulative grooming. In this case, the alleged incident is
isolated, not part of a pattern of conduct. There is no history of prior
complaints or questionable behavior by the accused. The accused humbly
submits that there is no credible evidence to establish mental abuse or
harassment under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
❖ Whether the accused acted in accordance with the lawful duties and
responsibilities of a teacher, or whether his actions can be classified as a
violation of his position of authority.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the accused was acting in the best
interests of the complainant and fulfilling his responsibilities as a teacher. The
accused, acting as a guardian , never exploited his position as a teacher. There
is no evidence of threat, coercion, bribe, or promise to the complainant. The
POCSO Act targets those who use power dynamics to exploit children. The
context in this case does not demonstrate abuse of such authority.
❖ Whether the accused was acting out of a genuine desire to help the
complainant, considering the victim’s emotional distress, or whether
there was a malicious intent.
It is humbly submitted before the court that the accused's actions were entirely
motivated by a desire to help the complainant, who was in emotional distress.
The accused acted solely out of compassion and professional duty. He had no
previous history of inappropriate conduct and was well-regarded in his
profession. The isolated event, even if misinterpreted, should not be treated as
evidence of malice or criminal behavior.
• The incident occurred in a school environment, where the accused was
acting in his official role as a teacher and mentor.
• Bijoy v. State of West Bengal, 2017 (1) CHN (CAL) 38
13
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
• The complainant was reportedly found crying and emotionally
disturbed, which prompted the accused to comfort her.
• Offering food or allowing the student to sit momentarily near him was a
compassionate, spontaneous response to a distressed child, not a
premeditated act.
•Teachers are placed in a position of acting in loco parentis, i.e., in the place
of a parent during school hours. Under this doctrine, acts of affection, care, or
physical closeness—if reasonable and appropriate to the situation—do not
automatically suggest criminal intent. Malicious intent must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt to establish culpability under POCSO provisions.
The accused’s behavior was neither repetitive, secretive, nor accompanied by
any inappropriate language, touch, or solicitation. There is no material
evidence (such as CCTV footage, witness statements, or expert opinion) that
supports any malicious or sexually predatory behavior.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393) – The Supreme Court
held that intent is a critical component in determining whether conduct amounts
to sexual assault or harassment. In absence of clear, convincing proof of intent,
a conviction cannot be sustained.
• The accused is a respected educator, with no previous complaints or
disciplinary actions recorded.
• The absence of prior misconduct indicates a pattern of trustworthy,
student-focused conduct, making malicious intent highly improbable.
Emotional interactions between teachers and students, especially in early or
primary years, can sometimes be misinterpreted. The alleged act must be
viewed in totality of circumstances, not isolated or exaggerated.the accused
did not harbor any malicious intent. His actions were situational, emotionally
responsive, and consistent with his role as a teacher entrusted with the care
and well-being of students. The absence of sexual motive, prior misconduct,
and credible supporting evidence leads to the only reasonable conclusion: he
acted in good faith, not with malice.
• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393
14
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
❖ Whether threatening continuously on the part of the complainant and
misuse of political power without proving the said allegation violation of
Article 14, Article19(1)(a), Article 21.
It is humbly submitted before the court that Article 14 guarantees equality
before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
The accused is being targeted unfairly due to the influence and political power
wielded by the complainant's parents.
Instead of allowing an impartial and fair investigation, the complainant’s family
has used their position to pressure authorities into filing charges without
credible evidence.
This unequal treatment of the accused, by prioritizing political influence over
due process, is a clear violation of Article 14.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
"Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness. Any arbitrary action, even if it is done
under the cover of law, violates Article 14."
• Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773
The Court emphasized the need for fair treatment to every citizen, and ruled
that no person shall be discriminated against due to status or influence.
Article 19(1)(a) ensures the freedom of speech and expression, which includes
the right to defend one’s reputation and to seek redressal against
defamation.
The accused has been publicly defamed, threatened, and socially humiliated
based on unproven and unverified allegations.
The continuous threat of false litigation and media or social shaming,
influenced by the complainant’s family, has restrained the accused from
defending himself freely, violating his right to speak and assert his innocence.
The complainant's misuse of political clout has silenced the accused’s voice in
society and in his profession.
• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
• Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773
15
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728
The Supreme Court upheld the right to reputation as an integral part of
freedom of expression and recognized defamation and false implication as
infringements of Article 19(1)(a).
Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, including the
right to live with dignity, right to reputation, and right against arbitrary
actions.
The accused’s mental health, professional standing, and reputation have been
severely harmed by the false and politically motivated charges.
Repeated threats without due proof amount to mental cruelty and harassment,
infringing the right to live with dignity.
The use of power by the victim’s family to manipulate investigation and
demand an apology publicly, even before due legal process, results in arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
The accused is being victimized not just by false allegations, but by a systemic
misuse of political and social influence aimed at pressuring him into
submission without a fair trial or proven guilt. This results in a serious violation
of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the
Constitution.
The Hon’ble Court is respectfully urged to consider the lack of credible
evidence, the possible misuse of process, and the constitutional violations
faced by the accused.
The defense respectfully submits that the accused, Anish Bhattacharya, is a
victim of misunderstanding and false implication. The charges under Sections
8 and 12 of the POCSO Act are not substantiated by law or facts.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2728
16
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities citied it is most humbly prayed and implored in the court of
LD. Additional District and Session Judge (POCSO special court) at Howrah
that it may graciously be pleased:
1. Hold that the charges under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 are unsubstantiated
and based on false, exaggerated, or misconstrued allegations,
unsupported by credible evidence;
2. Acknowledge the absence of mens rea (criminal intent) and the lack of
sexual intent in the actions attributed to the accused, as per the
definitions under the POCSO Act.
3. Recognize the violation of the fundamental rights of the accused under
Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, due to
continuous threats, public vilification, and misuse of legal and political
machinery.
4. Dismiss the charges framed against the accused in the interest of
justice, equity, and fair play.
5. Acquit the accused honorably of all charges, and direct that his name
and reputation be restored.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Moot Counsels for Accused
17
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
18
INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT PRACTICE SESSION ,2025
19
