2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM 2024-2025

VIVEKANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY COLLEGE OF LAW

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2019

KARIM KHAN AND OTHERS …. PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SIDDHI SHRIKANT NIGDE 55
SWAPNIL SUDHAKAR PATIL 60
VEDANT SANDEEP RANE 65

f 1 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

SR.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. COVER PAGE 1

2. LIST OF AUTHORITIES 3

3. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

5. VAKALATNAMA 6

6. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

7. ISSUES RAISED 9

8. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE ACT OF ALLEGED EXTRA

11-15
JUDICIAL EXECUTION BY POLICE WAS JUSTIFIED OR
NOT?

ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE

9.
ACCUSED UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 WERE
16-17
VIOLATED DUE TO THE ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL
KILLING?

ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL

18-20
EXECUTION BY THE POLICE COMES UNDER THE AMBIT
OF CUSTODIAL DEATH?

10. PRAYER 21

2 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [LIST OF AUTHORITIES]

CASES:
 Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
 Public Prosecutor v. Jashoda Prasad Sinha
 Braham Swaroop v. State of U.P
 Mahabir Choudhary v. State of Bihar
 Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra
 Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr
 State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
 D.K. Basu v. State Of West Bengal
 Roshan Beevi and Others v. Joint Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu and Others
 Harban Singh v. State
 Yashwant v. State of Maharashtra

CONSTITUTIONS:
1) The Constitution of India

STATUTES:
1) The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

BOOKS:
1) Bare Act of The Constitution of India
2) MP. Jain Constitution of India
3) Bare Act of Indian Penal Code, 1860
4) KD Gaur Indian Penal Code

LEGAL DATABASE:
1) https://indiankanoon.org/
2) https://www.scconline.com/
3) https://www.manupatrafast.com
4) https://www.casemine.com/
5) https://www.legalservicesindia.com/
3 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]

ABBREVIATION FULL-FORM
& And
Ors. Others
No. Number
p. Page
vs. Versus
AIR All India Reporter
Bom Bombay
ILR Indian Law Report
SCC Supreme Court Cases
U/S Under Section
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Anrs. Another’s
R/W Read With
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

4 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits before this Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
that it has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the present matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India1.
Article 226 is based upon the legal maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, which means that where
there is a right, there is a remedy. It guarantees all persons the right to move to the High Court
of Bombay to enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The
present memorandum sets forth the present case’s facts, contentions, and arguments.

1 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

i) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
ii) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
5 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [VAKALATNAMA]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2019

Karim Khan and Others …. Petitioners

Versus
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

Sir,

We, State of Maharashtra (Through Wagholi Police Station) Respondents above named
do hereby appoint Prosecutors Ms. Siddhi Nigde, Mr. Swapnil Patil and Mr. Vedant
Rane, to act, appear and plead for us as our Advocates in the above matter.

In witness whereof we have set and subscribed our hands to this writing at Mumbai.
Dated this 1st day of June 2019.

Accepted Advocates for the Respondent

Siddhi Shrikant Nigde

Swapnil Sudhakar Patil
Vedant Sandeep Rane

Prosecutors High Court,

Bombay
Advocates for Respondent
Chamber 40, BHC
Fort, Mumbai.

6 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

I. The incidence occurred on 29th November 2019 between 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. That
the victim lady Veterinary Doctor parked her scooter near PERNE TOLL PLAZA and
she took a cab for nearest place WAGHOLI to attend her patient’s visit call and she
returned back around 9:35 p.m. to pick up the scooter, that time she found that one of
the wheel was deflated.

II. Accused persons were wandering there, they made a plan to misbehave with the victim
as she was alone and at the relevant time nobody was nearby. Accused Abdul Karim
Khan approached the woman on pretext of helping her. At the same time other accused
Bhaskar came there on the pretext of her help, he took the scooter away saying that he
would replace the deflated tyre.

III. Meanwhile, accused Abdul Karim Khan, Champat and Damodar forcibly dragged the
victim to an empty plot nearby and brutally assaulted and committed gang rape on her.
The accused Bhaskar who on the pretext of replacing deflated tyre took the scooter to
return and he also raped the victim.

IV. The accused persons committed gang rape and also assaulted victim and they put the
body of the victim woman in the waiting truck on the highway from some distance.
When they found an isolated spot 1.5 KM away from the place, they set the body on
fire by pouring petrol and diesel on the body of Victim.

V. The said incidence was noted by one passer-by and he called the Police on phone
No.100, Police immediately reached at the spot. The Police arrested all the four accused
within Twenty Four hours based on evidence gathered from CCTV Camera footage
installed at TOLL PLAZA. All accused were produced before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Pune and Police obtained Police custody of all four accused for the investigation
of crime.

VI. During the further investigation on 06.12.2019 at 5:30 a.m. accused persons were taken
on the spot of incidence by Police, there accused Abdul Karim Khan and Champat all
7 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 of sudden snatched the gun from one of the Police person and they were trying to flee
from the Police custody, therefore Police fired on all the four accused in which all
accused persons died on the spot.

VII. Multiple petitions were filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay by social activists
and by parents of accused persons in Gang Rape and murder case against the act of
Police persons.

8 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [ISSUES RAISED]

● ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE ACT OF ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL

EXECUTION BY POLICE WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

● ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 WERE VIOLATED DUE TO THE
ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLING?

● ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION BY

THE POLICE COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF CUSTODIAL DEATH?

9 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS]

● ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE ACT OF ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL

EXECUTION BY POLICE WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
The Respondent State humbly submits that, the act of alleged extra judicial execution by
Police was justified. The Police can shoot an accused, who tries to escape from their
custody and according to section 46(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPc”)
the action taken by Police against the accused persons in this present case is permissible by
law. The action taken by Police Officials was pure self- defense, as there was inconvenience
caused to them and hence, the strict action taken was unavoidable.

● ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

UNDER ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 WERE VIOLATED DUE TO THE
ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLING?
The Respondent State humbly submits that, there were no infringement of Fundamental
rights of the accused, guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, 1950. The Police has acted according to the rule of law and followed due procedure
of law. The action taken by Police officers was part of their duties.

● ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION BY

THE POLICE COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF CUSTODIAL DEATH?
The Respondent State humbly submits that, the alleged extra judicial execution by the
Police does not come under the ambit of custodial death, because the incident occurred
during a field operation and not within a controlled custodial environment. The deaths
resulted from an immediate threat when one accused allegedly snatched a firearm,
prompting the Police to act in self-defense.

10 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE ACT OF EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION BY POLICE

WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

CONTENTION –
The Respondent State humbly submits that, the act of alleged extra judicial execution by Police
was justified. The Police can shoot an accused, who tries to escape from their custody and
according to section 46(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPc”) the action taken by
Police against the accused persons in this present case is permissible by law. The action taken
by Police Officials was pure self- defense, as there was inconvenience caused to them and
hence, the strict action taken was unavoidable.

The action taken by the Police cannot be considered as inappropriate in the eyes of law.

According to the facts of the case, the four men were allegedly accused of rape and murder, by
setting the body of the victim on fire, which amounts to be, the most heinous and unforgivable
offence, an individual can commit and one of the most egregious violation of law under
sections 300 and 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

There have been many occasions, wherein Police Officers have shown extraordinary courage
and sacrifice, risking their own personal life to defend the people of our nation. From taking
on armed criminals, freeing hostages, stopping terrorist attack, these Officers represent the
greatest level of sacrifice and dedication.

In the present case, the Police Officers arrested all the four accused within 24 hours, based on
the CCTV Evidence. The accused persons were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Pune, and the Police were directed to take custody of all the four accused. On 6th
December 2019, during the course of further investigation when the accused persons were
taken to the spot where the incidence took place, one of the accused persons snatched a fully
loaded pistol from a Police Officer, and tried to threaten them, which ultimately resulted to the

11 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
use of lethal force by the Police Officers against the accused persons to neutralize any potential
threat comprehensively.

However, it may be noted that the Police Officers acted in good faith and fair dealing, within
the ambit of law. The Indian law, does not distinguish between a Police Officer and an ordinary
man, if a serious crime resulting in death takes place.

1.1- Provisions under Indian Penal Code, 1860

Pursuant to sections 96 and 100 of IPC, the Police Officers availed their rights which were
conferred upon them by the Legislation. The Counsel respectfully submits that, with relation
to the act in question, the Police Officials acted well within their rights. The Police used their
authority in accordance with their rights under the IPC. According to the IPC, the Police may
use the legal framework for self-defence as enumerated under Sections 96 to 106.

For ease of reference the relevant sections are reproduced hereunder,

96. Things done in private defence.—
Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.—

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend—
(First)— His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting
the human body;
(Secondly)— The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other
person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery,
mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, rob-bery, mischief
or criminal trespass.

100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.—
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the
last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the
assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the
descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—

12 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 (First)— Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(Secondly)— Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehen-sion that grievous
hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
(Thirdly)— An assault with the intention of committing rape;
(Fourthly)— An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
(Fifthly)— An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abduct-ing;
(Sixthly)— An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to
have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
(Seventhly)— An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or
administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such act.

102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.—
The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the
offence though the of-fence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as
such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

The Supreme Court in case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab2, clarified that the right to
self-defence is based on the necessity to avert an imminent threat. The use of force in self-
defence is justified if there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The
judgment reinforces that Police officers can invoke these principles when facing immediate
danger.

In the landmark judgement of Public Prosecutor v. Jashoda Prasad Sinha3, The Court held
that the right of self-defence under Sections 96-106 IPC applies to Police officers as well. It
ruled that if the officer genuinely believed that there was an imminent threat to their life, the
use of force, even resulting in death, was justified.

2
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 642
3
1977 AIR 1754
13 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
Further the Counsel states that in Braham Swaroop v. State of U.P4, the Apex Court observed
that if a Police officer, in the lawful discharge of duty, is confronted with a threat to life or
serious injury, they are justified in using necessary force, even if it results in death. This
judgment underscores the applicability of self-defence provisions to law enforcement officers.

1.2- Provisions under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

The Counsel submits that under Section 46(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the
Police are empowered to use necessary force, including lethal force, during an encounter to
prevent a suspect from evading arrest, particularly when the individual poses a significant
threat. This legal provision supports the Police’s actions during the encounter in this case.
Therefore, encounter killings may also be considered under this section when the use of force
is necessary to effect an arrest under dangerous circumstances.

The Counsel humbly submits that, apropos to Section 197 of the CrPc, which empowers the
Public Servants, including Police officers, from being prosecuted in respect of any offence
alleged to have been committed while discharging their official duties, unless prior sanction,
no Court shall take cognizance of such offence.

The Counsel states that the Police had reasonable cause as the accused had a loaded pistol in
their hands and the Police had reasonable cause to believe that the accused are going to fire in
order to run away from the Police. As held in Mahabir Choudhary v. State of Bihar5 this
Hon’ble Court held that "the High Court erred in holding that the appellants had no right to
private defence at any stage. However, this court upheld the judgment of the session’s court
holding that since the appellants had right to private defence to protect their property, but in
the circumstances of the case, the appellants had exceeded right to private defence. The court
observed that right to private defence cannot be used to kill the wrongdoer unless the person
concerned has a reasonable cause to fear that otherwise death or grievous hurt might ensue in
which case that person would have full measure of right to private defence including killing".

4
2011 (6) SCC 288
5
(1996) 5 SCC 107
14 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
Further in the case of Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab6, a person who is apprehending death
or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales on the spur of the moment and in the heat of
circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with
weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to
expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation
which is commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use
of force. It would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private defence
commences, as soon as the threat becomes imminent. Wherein in the present case as the gun
was in the hands of the accused which was a clear indication of them wanting to fire the Police
Officials.

Further, the Counsel states that Police Officials operated within their powers, according to all
necessary and relevant processes, and took all actions that were deemed reasonable at the time
without any malice. The Counsel would additionally like to state that in accordance with the
guidelines established by the NHRC and the Supreme Court in the ruling of People’s Union
for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra7, we, the Respondents, also call into question the
suit’s very maintainability. Every death that results from Police shooting shall always be the
subject of a magistrate’s investigation under Section 176 of the CrPc, and a report of that
investigation must be given to the Judicial Magistrate with jurisdiction under Section 190 of
the Code and The victim’s family may file a complaint with the Sessions Judge who has
territorial authority if it discovers that the aforementioned procedure has not been followed,
that there is a pattern of abuse, or that any of the above-mentioned functionaries have not
conducted an independent inquiry or acted impartially, then said actions can be taken.

6
AIR 1991 SC 1316
7
2014 (10) SCC 635
15 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER
ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 WERE VIOLATED DUE TO THE ALLEGED
EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLING?

CONTENTION –
The Respondent State humbly submits that, there were no infringement of Fundamental rights
of the accused, guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The Police has acted according to the rule of law and followed due procedure of law. The action
taken by Police officers was part of their duties.

2.1- No violation of Article 14

Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrines the principle of equality before the law, a
cornerstone of the Indian legal system, ensuring that every individual, regardless of their status,
race, colour, gender, caste, tribe or any background is entitled to equal protection under the
law.

It is true that, the accused persons were subject to fair and reasonable trial, but the action taken
against the accused persons was equitable and was determined by their behaviour. The accused
persons were handled impartially and in compliance with the law. The aggressive behaviour
towards the Police Officers with an intention of causing grievous hurt and their sheer desire to
avoid arrest, required Police to respond in a way that was appropriate for the threat they posed.

The Police enforced the law justly and evenly, taking into account the gravity of the situation
while maintaining the concept of equality. The action taken against the accused persons was in
strict conformity with the Fundamental mandate, thereby upholding the essence of Article 14.

2.2- No violation of Article 21

The right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not confer an
unqualified entitlement to evade the course of justice or to engage in hostile actions against
law enforcement personnel.

16 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
The Supreme Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.8, clarified that while
the right to life is a fundamental right, it is not without limitations. The accused in the instant
case presented an immediate and significant threat to the lives of the Police officers by
attempting to abscond and by launching an aggressive assault against them. Under these
circumstances, the application of force by the Police was necessary to avert imminent peril and
to safeguard their own lives.

The Court highlighted the necessity for Police officers to protect themselves while fulfilling
their legal obligations to apprehend offenders. The provision of statutory sanction as a
prerequisite for prosecuting Police officers serves as a safeguard, ensuring that they are not
unduly prosecuted for actions taken in good faith during the performance of their duties,
particularly in life-threatening situations.

The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights9, held that while fundamental rights are paramount, they are subject to reasonable
restrictions imposed by law. The case emphasized that the state has the authority to impose
restrictions on fundamental rights, provided these restrictions are justified, reasonable, and
proportionate. This case supports the notion that the right to life can be restricted by the state
under certain circumstances, provided that, the restrictions are within the framework of law. In
the context of Police encounters, if the use of lethal force is legally sanctioned and necessary
to prevent greater harm, it is argued as a reasonable restriction under Article 21.

Furthermore, the case highlights the balance that must be struck between the rights of the
accused and the need for effective law enforcement. The Police, while ensuring that the accused
were afforded their Fundamental rights, also acted in a manner that was necessary to protect
public safety and order. The Police’s decision to take the accused into custody was not only
justified by the evidence at hand but was also essential for the prevention of further harm. The
subsequent actions of the Police, including the production of the accused before the magistrate
and the securing of Police custody, were all in line with legal procedures, demonstrating a
commitment to the rule of law.

8
(2012) 12 SCC 722
9
(2010) 3 SCC 571
17 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
ISSUE 3 – WHETHER THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL EXECUTION BY THE
POLICE COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF CUSTODIAL DEATH?

CONTENTION –
The Respondent State humbly submits that, the alleged extra judicial execution by the Police
does not come under the ambit of custodial death, because the incident occurred during a field
operation, not within a controlled custodial environment. The deaths resulted from an
immediate threat when one accused allegedly snatched a firearm, prompting the Police to act
in self-defense.

3.1 Custodial Death and Encounter

The alleged Extra Judicial Execution by the Police cannot be justified under the aspect of
custodial death.
The Counsel humbly submits that Custodial death is when the suspected person dies because
of the torture and inhuman treatment by a Police officer during the time of his/her interrogation.
Whereas in Encounter, the Police officer kills the suspected person and takes a plea of self-
defense which is available to everyone under IPC 96 to 106.

In the landmark case of D.K. Basu versus State Of West Bengal10 the Supreme Court has
interpreted the term custodial death. “Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a
civilized society governed by the Rule of Law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of
the Constitution required to be jealously and scrupulously protected. We cannot wish away the
problem” As per the interpretation of the Supreme Court, the death of a person would be
construed as custodial death, if there was any form of torture of cruel, inhuman nature or any
degrading treatment to the deceased accused, however, there has been no evidence to show that
the police have mistreated or have acted maliciously towards the accused persons.
Thus, Counsel respectfully submits that the Petitioners in the present case have failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt of any malicious intent on part of the Respondents.

In Roshan Beevi and Others Versus Joint Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu and
Others11, the Supreme Court observed that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in

10
(1997) 2015 SCC
11
1983 Scc Online Mad 1634
18 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
Harban Singh v. State12, wherein the interpretation of the terms ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’ arose
for decision while dealing with Sec. 104(2) of the Customs Act, held as follows (at pp. 328,
329):- "Arrest is a mode of formally taking a person in Police custody, but a person may be in
the custody of the Police in other ways. What amounts to arrest is laid down by the legislature
in express terms in S. 46, Cr. P.C., whereas the words ‘in custody’ which are to be found in
certain sections of the Evidence Act only denote surveillance or restriction on the movement
of the person concerned, which may be complete, as, for instance, in the case of an arrested
person, or may be partial. The concept of being in custody cannot therefore be equated with
the concept of a formal arrest and there is difference between the two.

As in the present case it is pertinent to note that when the Police had taken the accused to the
place of crime for further investigation and the accused persons snatched the loaded pistol from
the Police, the Police had the powers that were conferred upon them under Section 96, 97, 100
and 102 of IPC which gives them the right of private defence.

Further, the Counsel states that, in the Supreme Court case of Yashwant v. State of
Maharashtra13, Justice N. V. Ramana has rightly quoted “that with great power comes greater
responsibility”. But along with this responsibility it is important that the Police are given
certain powers to protect themselves when facing such dangerous situations.

Further, the Counsel humbly states that even Justice R.K. Trivedi has quoted that "The Police
must be given the liberty to act firmly and decisively when faced with dangerous criminals.
The right to self-defense is as much available to a Policeman as it is to any other citizen."

Thus the Counsel humbly submits that the situation described does not qualify as a custodial
death because the accused were not killed while being held under secure custody or restraint.
Instead, the deaths occurred during a dynamic and dangerous situation in which the accused
persons allegedly attempted to escape by seizing a loaded pistol, posing an immediate threat to
the Police Officials. Custodial deaths typically involve individuals who are securely detained
and not actively resisting or posing a threat. In this case, the use of force was a response to the

12
AIR 1970 Bom 79
13
2018 (2) S.C.Cr.R. 1223
19 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
accused’s actions during an attempted escape, rather than harm inflicted on restrained
individuals in custody.

20 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025
 [PRAYER]

Therefore, in light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and Authorities cited, the
Counsels on behalf of the Respondent most respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court as
under:

1. TO DISMISS THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION WITH COST;

2. ⁠TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE POLICE WAS

JUSTIFIED/APPROPRIATE UNDER SECTION 96 R/W SECTIONS 97, 100
AND 102 OF IPC;

3. ⁠TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE POLICE DOES NOT
INFRINGE ANY FUNDAMENTAL/ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND/OR
HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS;

4. TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE POLICE WAS WITHIN

THE AMBIT OF SELF DEFENCE AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY POLICE
WERE A PART OF DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES;

5. ⁠FOR COST OF THIS PETITION.

And pass any other appropriate order as the court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice
and good conscience.

FOR SUCH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY
EVER.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
-S/D
(Counsels for the Respondent)

21 | RESPONDENT
2nd ACADEMIC MOOT COURT EXAM- 2024-2025