( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR’S LEGACY MEMORIAL INTRA-COLLEGE MOOT COURT
COMPETETION, 2025
Organized Siddharth College of Law
TEAM NUMBER: 05
ROLE: RESPONDENTS COUNSEL
TOTAL WORD COUNT
IN THE MATTER OF: [ADITYA KHANNA (PETITIONER VS. UNION OF INDIA(RESPONDENT))]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._OF 2025
BETWEEN:
(ADITYA KHANNA (INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST))
) … APPELLANT/PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
) … RESPONDENTS
Drawn and Filed by
(MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS)
Counsel For Respondents
Page 1 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO._OF 2025
BETWEEN:
(ADITYA KHANNA (INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST))
) … APPELLANT/PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
) … RESPONDENTS
DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:
Counsel For Respondents
Page 2 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
TABLE OF CONTENTS :
PARTICULARS
PAGE NO
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. Cases Referred
B. Statutes, Treaties & Conventions
C. Books & Articles
D. Online Sources
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether the mass surveillance programs conducted by the
Union of India infringe upon the fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Articles 14 (Equality before law), 19 (Freedom
of speech), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the
Constitution, particularly in light of the Puttaswamy case
recognizing the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right? 2.
Whether the provisions of Section 124A, IPC (Sedition), and
certain sections of the UAPA, particularly their application to the
petitioner, constitutionally valid in light of the fundamental
freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution? 3. Given
the protracted delay in the trial, the petitioner’s continued
detention and denial of bail constitute a violation of his right to
personal liberty under Article 21, and whether his detention is
proportionate and in compliance with the prescribed legal
safeguards. 4. Whether evidence obtained through unauthorized
Page 3 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
mass surveillance, in violation of the petitioner’s constitutional
rights, should be deemed inadmissible in a court of law under the
doctrine of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence? 5. Whether
the actions of the petitioner, by publishing the classified
documents, fall within the reasonable restrictions allowed under
Article 19(2), considering the interests of national security,
public order, and the sovereignty of the State?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS (ARGUMENTS ADVANCED)
PRAYERS
SUBMISSIONS
ANNEXURE
BACK COVER
Page 4 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND INSTITUTIONS
SSL
Siddharth School of Law
CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation
NHRC
National Human Rights Commission
SC
Supreme Court of India
HC
High Court
CAT
Central Administrative Tribunal
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES
Art.
Article
CoI
Constitution of India
Const.
Constitution
LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURAL TERMS
FIR
First Information Report
SLP
Special Leave Petition
CrPC
Criminal Procedure Code
BNS.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNSS
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
BSA
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Page 5 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
IPC
Indian Penal Code
IEA
Indian Evidence Act
AIR
All India Reporter
LEGAL CASE CITATION ABBREVIATIONS
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
JT
Judges Times
MLJ
Madras Law Journal
CLJ
Current Law Journal
EVIDENCE AND INVESTIGATION TERMS
LEGAL CONCEPTS AND TERMS
v.
Versus
et al.
And others
ibid.
In the same source
supra
Above mentioned
op. cit.
In the work cited
cf.
Compare
viz.
Namely
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS
HR
Human Rights
Page 6 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
HR Laws
Human Rights Laws
Const.
Constitutional
Const. Am. Constitutional Amendment
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REFERENCES
ICJ
International Court of Justice
UNHRC
United Nations Human Rights Council
ICCPR
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PROCEDURAL SECTIONS AND LEGAL REFERENCES
Sec.
Section
Expl.
Explanation
Provl.
Proviso
cl.
Clause
Hon’ble Honourable
MISCELLANEOUS
Para.
Paragraph
Ed.
Edition
Approx.
Approximately
Page 7 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (LIST OF SOURCES )
A. CASES REFERRED
Page 8 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
B. STATUTES, TREATIES & CONVENTIONS
S.No.
Title
Section/Article
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
C. BOOKS & ARTICLES
S.No.
Author
Title
Edition/Journal
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page 9 of 44
Publisher
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
D. ONLINE SOURCES
S.No.
Author/Organization
Title
Website
Date
Accessed
1.
2.
3.
Page 10 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
APPLICABLE LEGAL SECTIONS / STATUTORY PROVISIONS
I. INDIAN PENAL CODE SECTIONS (Now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) :
II. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (Now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) :
III. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (Now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) :
1. Section 25 IEA (BSA Section 25) - Confession to Police Officer
"No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."
2. Section 27 IEA (BSA Section 27) - Discovery Statement
"Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from
a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether
it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
3. Section 28 –IEA (BSA Section 28) – Confession
If such a confession as is referred to in section 27 is made after the removal of any impression caused
by any such inducement, threat or promise, such a confession is relevant.
4. Section 32 IEA (BSA Section 32) - Dying Declaration
"Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found,
or who has become incapable of giving evidence..."
5.Section 54 IEA (BSA Section 54) – Character of accused
In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence
has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
6. Section 106 IEA (BSA Section 106) – Burden of Proof
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon
him.
Page 11 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
IV. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. Article 21 - Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law."
2. Article 14 - Equality Before Law
"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India."
3. Article 19(1)(a) and (b) - Freedom of Speech and Expression
"(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;"
V. SPECIAL ACTS
TEXTBOOKS AND LEGAL COMMENTARIES
1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, “The Indian Penal Code”
- Criminal Liability Principles
2. K.D. Gaur, “Criminal Law: Principles and Punishment”
- Theories of Criminal Responsibility
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, “The Code of Criminal Procedure”
- Criminal Proceedings.
Page 12 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
JOURNAL ARTICLES
1. “Institutional Accountability in Criminal Investigations”
Harvard Law Review, 2023
2. “Medical Professional Liability: A Comprehensive Analysis”
Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022
REPORTS AND COMMISSIONS
1. National Human Rights Commission Reports on Institutional Accountability
2. Law Commission of India Reports on Criminal Procedure Reform
Page 13 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The instant Special Leave Petition is filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which empowers
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal within the territory of India.
The jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is established on the following grounds:
1. Constitutional Mandate
The present matter involves substantial questions of law relating to fundamental rights under Articles 21
(Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) of the Constitution of India.
The case raises critical issues of:
- Violation of human dignity
- Institutional accountability
- Protection of healthcare professionals
- Right to fair investigation
2. Extraordinary Circumstances
The case presents exceptional circumstances warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court of India,
specifically:
- Systematic failure of local law enforcement
- Deliberate administrative negligence
- Potential breach of constitutional protections
- Widespread public interest concerns
3. Investigative Jurisdiction
The case has been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Calcutta High Court
on August 15, 2024, indicating the gravity and inter-jurisdictional complexity of the matter.
4. Supervisory Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has already exercised its supervisory jurisdiction by:
Page 14 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- Forming a 10-member task force
- Overseeing administrative reforms
- Ensuring safety of healthcare professionals
5. Appellate Jurisdiction
The petition is filed by the victim’s parents challenging:
- Delayed First Information Report
- Evidence tampering
- Administrative failures
- Inadequate criminal investigation
6. Public Interest Litigation ( Art 32)
The matter transcends individual grievance and involves:
- Systemic institutional reforms
- Protection of fundamental rights
- Ensuring accountability in public
7. Inherent Powers of the Supreme Court
To ensure complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, given the case’s grave nature involving
institutional negligence, sexual assault, and murder within a medical institution.
PRAYER
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may:
- Admit the present Special Leave Petition
- Issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions
- Ensure justice is served comprehensively
Page 15 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The Counsel, therefore, submit that this Hon’ble Court has the full jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the
present matter in the interests of justice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 11, 2024, a tragic incident unfolded at R.J. Kur Medical College and Hospital located in
Sandumati, East Bengal. A postgraduate trainee doctor, aged 31, was found deceased under highly
suspicious circumstances in the hospital’s fourth-floor seminar hall.
Forensic investigations revealed severe internal and external injuries consistent with sexual assault and
murder. The victim’s body was discovered in a semi-naked state, indicating a violent and potentially
premeditated crime. The initial forensic examination suggested a brutal attack that violated the victim’s
fundamental rights to life and dignity.
The hospital administration demonstrated gross negligence by delaying the First Information Report
(FIR) by 14 hours after the discovery of the body. This delay raised immediate concerns about potential
administrative cover-up and interference with the investigation.
On August 12, 2024, Sanju Ray, a civic volunteer employed at the hospital, was arrested following a
confession during police interrogation. His arrest sparked widespread protests across East Bengal, led by
medical professionals and activists demanding justice and accountability.
Subsequent investigations revealed significant administrative irregularities:
1. Financial Improprieties: Evidence of financial misconduct within the hospital administration was
uncovered.
2. Evidence Tampering: The hospital’s former principal, Sandip Ghoosh, was implicated in
deliberately suppressing crucial evidence related to the case.
3. Investigative Failures: Local law enforcement demonstrated clear incompetence in handling the
initial investigation.
Responding to these systemic failures, the Calcutta High Court intervened on August 15, 2024,
transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to the lack of progress by
local police authorities.
Page 16 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The protests escalated on August 17, 2024, transforming into violent demonstrations where mobs
vandalized hospital property and disrupted essential medical services. This civil unrest further
highlighted the deep-seated anger and lack of faith in the local administrative and judicial systems.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and National Commission for Women (NCW)
publicly condemned the mishandling of the case. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court of India took suo
motu cognizance, forming a 10-member task force to ensure the safety of healthcare professionals and
oversee comprehensive administrative reforms.
By September 16, 2024, the CBI had made significant progress:
- Arrest of Sandip Ghoosh
- Arrest of multiple police officers involved in delaying the FIR
- Uncovering extensive evidence of administrative and investigative misconduct
The victim’s parents subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court, alleging:
1. Gross negligence by hospital authorities
2. Deliberate suppression of evidence
3. Bribery of local police officials to obstruct justice
The petitioners seek:
- Imposition of the death penalty for the accused
- Substantial compensation for the victim’s family
- Strict punitive measures against those responsible for administrative lapses
Page 17 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The case presents critical questions about criminal liability, institutional accountability, and the
protection of fundamental human rights within medical and law enforcement institutions.
ISSUES OF THE CASE : STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE NO 1 :- WHETHER CRIMINAL LIABILITY CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN THE
PRESENT CASE?
1.1. Regarding Primary Accused (Sanju Ray):
a) Whether the confession obtained during police interrogation is admissible under Sections 24-27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?
b) Whether forensic evidence conclusively establishes the commission of rape and murder by Sanju Ray
?
c) Whether all elements of offenses under Sections 376 and 302 IPC are proven beyond reasonable doubt
?
d) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and conclusive ?
1.2. Regarding Hospital Administrators & Sandip Ghoosh :
a) Whether the 14-hour delay in filing FIR constitutes criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC ?
b) Whether Former Principal Sandip Ghoosh’s actions amount to evidence tampering under Sections 201
and 204 IPC ?
c) Whether suppression of case information constitutes voluntary criminal misconduct ?
d) Whether financial irregularities establish criminal intent in the said matter ?
Page 18 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
ISSUE NO. 2) WHETHER NEGLIGENCE AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY IS ESTABLISHED?
2.1. Regarding Hospital’s Liability:
a) Whether R.J. Kur Medical College & Hospital failed to maintain adequate security measures ?
b) Whether proper protocols for employee safety were in place and followed. ?
c) Whether the hospital conducted due diligence in civic volunteer employment ?
d) Whether security lapses constitute gross negligence ?
2.2. Regarding State Government’s Liability:
a) Whether there was systemic failure in oversight of hospital administration ?
b) Whether local police’s delayed response establishes state negligence ?
c) Whether proper mechanisms for hospital safety were implemented ?
d) Whether state’s supervisory role creates liability ?
2.3. Regarding Vicarious Liability:
a) Whether the hospital bears responsibility for acts of civic volunteer ?
b) Whether the relationship between accused and hospital establishes employer liability ?
c) Whether the scope of employment extends to criminal acts ?
d) Whether inadequate background verification creates liability ?
ISSUE NO. 3 :- WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE
ESTABLISHED?
3.1. Regarding Victim’s Rights:
a) Whether delay in FIR registration violates Article 21 ?
b) Whether inadequate security measures violate right to life and dignity ?
c) Whether hospital administrators’ actions constitute state action under Article 12 ?
d) Whether compensation is warranted for rights violations ?
Page 19 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
3.2. Regarding Protestors’ Rights:
a) Whether medical professionals’ right to protest under Article 19(1)(a) extends to essential services ?
b) Whether violence and vandalism during protests negates constitutional protection ?
c) Whether public interest in healthcare outweighs right to protest ?
d) Whether alternate grievance redressal mechanisms were available ?
3.3. Regarding Institutional Reform:
a) Whether Supreme Court’s task force recommendations are binding ?
b) Whether NHRC and NCW recommendations create legal obligations ?
c) Whether administrative reforms can be judicially mandated ?
d) Whether compensatory and punitive measures can be simultaneously imposed ?
Page 20 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
A. ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY ( ISSUE NO 1 ) :
 Can the accused, Sanju Ray, be held criminally liable for rape and murder based on the available
evidence, including the confession and forensic findings ?
 To what extent can hospital administrators, including former principal Sandip Ghoosh, be held
accountable for tampering with evidence and delaying the FIR?
ANS: The counsel submits that the Hon'ble Court must dismiss the charges against both accused
parties (Sanju Ray and Sandip Ghoosh ) due to lack of conclusive evidence and proper legal grounds
beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
B. ON NEGLIGENCE AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ISSUE NO 2) :
 Can the R.J. Kur Medical College and Hospital and the State Government be held liable for gross
negligence resulting in the victim's death?
 Does the hospital administration bear vicarious liability for failing to provide a safe working
environment for its employees?
ANS: The counsel submits that the Hon’ble Court must recognize that both the hospital and State
Government fulfilled their duties of reasonable care and cannot be held liable for an unforeseeable
criminal act committed by an individual acting outside the scope of employment.
C. ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (ISSUE NO 3) :
Page 21 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
 Were the victim’s fundamental rights to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
violated by the actions of the hospital administration and police?
 Do the protesting medical professionals have the right to strike under Article 19 of the Constitution,
or does the public interest in maintaining healthcare services override their right to protest?
ANS: The counsel submits that the Hon'ble Court must Recognize that constitutional obligations were
fulfilled, Declare violent protests as unconstitutional, Uphold reasonable restrictions on healthcare
workers' strikes and eventually Direct immediate resumption of full medical services
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
I. ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY ( ISSUE NO 1 ) :
The defense counsel primarily argues about the crime Scene Integrity as follows
- The CFSL1 report explicitly states that "the crime scene was not well preserved disturbances evident
on the scene"
- This fundamental flaw in evidence collection creates reasonable doubt about the reliability of physical
evidence
- The contaminated crime scene raises questions about the integrity of all forensic evidence collected
The defense counsel also Challenges the DNA2 Evidence as follows
- Given the accused's role as a civic volunteer at the hospital, his routine presence in the area could
explain trace DNA
- The compromised crime scene raises questions about proper collection and preservation of DNA
samples
1
Central Forensic Science Laboratory
2
Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
Page 22 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- The defense counsel argues cross-contamination due to improper scene preservation.
The counsel submits the DEFENCE FOR SANJU RAY (RESPONDENT NO. 2 ) , CHALLENGING
THE RAPE AND MURDER CHARGES on following grounds
1. Insufficient Physical Evidence:
- DNA evidence is contaminated due to multiple handlers
- No clear time of death established
- Crime scene compromised by multiple personnel access
- No direct witnesses to the alleged crime
"Scientific evidence must be absolutely reliable to form basis of conviction. Any reasonable doubt about
its integrity benefits the accused."3
The counsel expresses Contamination Concerns. “The prosecution must establish an unimpeachable
chain of custody of the samples collected for DNA analysis. Any break in this chain raises reasonable
doubts about the authenticity of the evidence.”4
2. The counsel lays emphasis on Inadmissible Confession as :
- It was Obtained under duress in absence of magistrate
- No video recording
- No independent witnesses
- Violation of Section 25 of Evidence Act
The defense counsel challenges the prosecution's case against Sanju Ray by Questioning the Confession
as - The initial confession cannot be considered reliable as it was retracted during the polygraph test
- No NARCO test was conducted to verify the truthfulness of either statement
3
Rajesh Patel v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 9 SCC 521
4
Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 5 SCC 509
Page 23 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- The circumstances and methods used to obtain the initial confession should be scrutinized for potential
coercion
“A confession made to a police officer is absolutely inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used for any
purpose whatsoever."5
“Constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) protects an accused against self-incrimination. Any
confession made to police officer is inadmissible in evidence.”6
Confessions made to police officers are completely barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The law
requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards to ensure voluntariness.”7
“Where there is reasonable doubt about the voluntary nature of a confession, such confession must be
excluded from consideration.”8
3. The Counsel argues that the Alternative Theories are not Investigated:
- Other potential suspects not questioned
- No investigation of personal enmities
- Security breach possibilities ignored
"Where investigation is defective and other possibilities are not ruled out, benefit must go to accused."9
The defense Counsel staunchly submits arguments, CHALLENGING "RAREST OF RARE"
CLASSIFICATION on following grounds:
1. Mitigating Factors:
- No prior criminal record
- Young age (supporting rehabilitation)
5
State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh (2008) 1 SCC 581
6
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424]
7
Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68
8
Navjot Sandhu v. State of NCT of Delhi (2005) 11 SCC 600
9
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Page 24 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- Family circumstances
- No evidence of premeditation
“Age of the accused, antecedents, and possibility of reformation are relevant factors in determining
whether a case falls within ‘rarest of rare’ category.”10
"Death penalty should be imposed only when alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed." 11
“Where the prosecution fails to establish pre-meditation or planning, and the crime appears to be result
of a sudden provocation or emotional disturbance, the case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of
rare.”12
“The prosecution must not only establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt but must also establish that the
case falls within the rarest of rare category through clear and convincing evidence.”13
The counsel recites the consideration of Alternative Punishment judgement -“When the option is between
life imprisonment and death sentence, the circumstances must be such that the lesser alternative would
be unquestionably foreclosed.” 14
The counsel firmly advances arguments that the political pressure and media coverage created a rush
to judgment. The focus on the accused may have prevented investigation of other potential suspects.
The contaminated crime scene makes it impossible to rule out other perpetrators. The accused’s
injuries could have occurred during his normal duties as a civic volunteer. The presence of his mobile
phone in the area was due to his employment at the hospital. The missing Bluetooth earphone could
have been lost during routine activities. Also the Timeline Inconsistencies is cogent from the broad
time window for the accused’s injuries (24-48 hours) makes it impossible to precisely connect them to
the crime. The CCTV footage showing the accused’s presence is consistent with his regular work
duties.
10
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498
11
Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452
12
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470]
13
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
14
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 277
Page 25 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
II. The defense Counsel most respectfully argues DEFENCE FOR SANDIP GHOOSH (RESPONDENT
NO. 3) on following grounds :
A. NO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ESTABLISHED
1. Absence of Common Intention:
- No proven communication with accused
- No established motive
- Administrative actions followed protocols
"Criminal conspiracy must be proved with clear and convincing evidence showing meeting of minds."15
2. Administrative Delays vs Criminal Intent:
- Standard procedures followed
- Documentation maintained
- Chain of command respected
"Mere delay in administrative action cannot be equated with criminal intent without concrete
evidence."16
B. THE DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITS GROUNDS CHALLENGING EVIDENCE TAMPERING
ALLEGATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Existence of Technical Issues :
- Pre-existing CCTV maintenance records
- Documented system failures
- Regular maintenance schedules
*"Technical failures and system issues must be distinguished from deliberate tampering."17
15
State through CBI v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253
16
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410
17
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Page 26 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
2. Records and Documentation :
- All records preserved
- Standard protocols followed
- Chain of custody maintained
The Respondents counsel argues about the Absence of Mens Rea: "Mere negligence or carelessness
in handling evidence, without proof of intention to screen offender, does not constitute offence under
Section 201 IPC."18
III. The DEFENSE counsel deeply argues the DEFENCE FOR R.J. KUR MEDICAL COLLEGE
(RESPONDENT NO. 4) on following grounds :
A. INSTITUTIONAL PROTOCOLS
1. Regular Security Measures:
- Regular security audits conducted
- Staff verification process in place
- Access control systems operational
2. Administrative Procedures:
- Standard operating procedures followed
- Internal investigation initiated promptly
- Cooperation with authorities maintained
The defense Counsel advances arguments for Lack of Coordination: “Mere presence or association does
not make a person part of criminal conspiracy unless there is evidence of agreement to commit an
offence.” 19
18
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699
19
State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253
Page 27 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The defense counsel urges to compare Administrative Delays vs Criminal Intent: “Administrative lapses
or procedural delays, without proof of criminal intent or meeting of minds, do not constitute criminal
conspiracy.” 20
B. The counsel further submits the FIR DELAY JUSTIFICATION as follows:
1. Legitimate Administrative Process:
- Initial fact verification was required
- Multiple department coordination was needed
- Legal consultation was necessary
- Documentation requirements were extensive.
"Delay in filing FIR in institutional context requires consideration of administrative hierarchy and
procedures."21
IV. The defense Counsel most humbly lays emphasis on ADDITIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS
involving :
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
1. Prosecution's Failure:
- No clear chain of events established
- Circumstantial evidence incomplete
- Crucial gaps in timeline
- Multiple interpretations possible
"In criminal cases, burden lies squarely on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt."22
B. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES
1. The counsel points out the Investigation Flaws as follows:
20
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410
21
State of H.P. v. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71
22
Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808]
Page 28 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- Improper evidence collection
- Witness statements not properly recorded
- Crime scene not properly secured
- Chain of custody compromised
"Where investigation suffers from serious flaws, benefit must go to accused."23
V. The Counsel urges the hon’ble Court to consider points ADDRESSED as follows:
1. Poor Medical Evidence Reliability due to - Time gap between death and discovery
- Multiple handling of body
- Possibility of post-mortem changes
2. Weak Witness Credibility due to - Inconsistent statements
- Time gaps in testimony
- Possible influence by media coverage
3. Need for Alternative Scenario Analysis:
- Possibility of accident not investigated
- Other entry/exit points not examined
- Hospital visitor records not analyzed
The counsel further questions about the Chain of Custody Issues:
Multiple visits to the crime scene by different teams suggests possible evidence contamination
The defense counsel argues that improper evidence handling makes it impossible to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
23
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178
Page 29 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The delay in proper investigation compromised the ability to identify other potential suspects
II. ON NEGLIGENCE AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY (ISSUE NO 2)
A. Regarding negligence of R.J. Kur Medical College and Hospital:
The counsel submits that the hospital cannot be held liable for gross negligence because of:
1 . The incident was an unforeseeable criminal act:
- No prior similar incidents had occurred
- The accused had cleared background verification
- The crime was beyond reasonable anticipation
2. The hospital's duty of care does not extend to absolute protection:
- Reasonable precautions were taken
- Resources were allocated appropriately
- Complete prevention of criminal acts is impossible
The Counsel argues that The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “For an act to amount to criminal
negligence, it must be gross or of a very high degree. The defense can argue that while the incident is
unfortunate, it does not meet this threshold since it resulted from an independent criminal act and not
systemic negligence.”24
The Counsel submits that emphasizes that “The negligence must be conclusively proved and not
presumed. The defense can argue that there is no direct evidence linking the hospital administration to
negligence contributing to the victim’s death.”25
24
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2004)
25
Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009)
Page 30 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
“The court held that the state could not be held liable for individual lapses unless it is proved that the
system itself was at fault.”26
The Counsel argues that the delay in filing the FIR is justified as a result of the hospital administration’s
shock and confusion during an extraordinary situation. The administration’s priority was ensuring the
safety of others and preserving the hospital’s operations amidst escalating tensions along with aiding the
investigation.
B. Regarding State Government's Liability:
The counsel submits that the State Government cannot be held vicariously liable because:
1. The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the state from liability:
- The function of maintaining law and order is sovereign
- Police response was within reasonable timeframes
- Administrative procedures were followed
2. The State had implemented adequate oversight mechanisms:
- Regular audits of hospital security
- Periodic review of safety protocols
- Standard operating procedures were in place
3. The causal connection between state actions and the incident is too remote:
- The crime was an independent act
- No direct state control over day-to-day hospital operations
26
State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra (2000)
Page 31 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
- Immediate response was initiated once informed
4. The State's responsibility is limited to policy-making and supervision:
- Policies for hospital security existed
- Guidelines for safety measures were provided
- Regular monitoring was conducted
5. Financial constraints and resource limitations must be considered:
- Budget allocations were reasonable
- Staff deployment was optimal
- Infrastructure development was ongoing
The counsel eventually argues that imposing strict liability on hospitals and the state for isolated criminal
acts could discourage public institutions from taking necessary risks, like hiring temporary or auxiliary
staff to manage workforce shortages. This might inadvertently harm public services, especially in
resource-constrained settings like government hospitals.
C. ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITAL ADMINSTRATION
The counsel submits that the Hon’ble Court must recognize that the hospital administration fulfilled
their duties of reasonable care and cannot be held vicariously liable for an unforeseeable criminal act
committed by an individual acting outside the scope of employment.
In the law of torts, vicarious liability means that in certain circumstances, A becomes liable in the eyes
of the law for a tort committed by B, although A may not have participated in the commission of the tort.
This doctrine owes its origin to the following two maxims:
-
Qui facit per alium facit per se: He who does an act through another is deemed to have done it
itself.
-
Respondeat Superior: Let the superior be responsible
Page 32 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The counsel submits that the hospital administration cannot be held vicarious liable because of:
1. Comprehensive security measures were in place at the time of incident:
-
CCTV surveillance systems were installed
-
Access control systems were operational
-
Regular security patrols were conducted
-
Security personnel were deployed as per standard protocols
2. The hospital had implemented reasonable safety measures:
-
Emergency response protocols existed
-
Staff training on safety procedures was conducted regularly
The counsel highlights that additional safeguards were beyond the scope of hospitals resources or
existing legal mandates. The accused civic volunteer (if assumed to be the culprit only for the sake
of arguments without admitting) was acting entirely outside the scope of his assigned duties,
committing a personal and criminal act for which the hospital cannot be held responsible. The
doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to independent criminal actions.
The Defense counsel argues that the accused’s criminal act was entirely personal and (only for the sake
of arguments without admitting is) unrelated to his official duties as a civic volunteer. “The court ruled
that employers are not liable for acts of employees done outside the scope of employment.”27
The counsel advances his arguments that “Systemic liability requires a clear demonstration of policy or
operational failures. The incident was a one-off event, not indicative of a systemic breakdown.”28
On behalf of the hospital administration, the Counsel states that the actions of the police and civic
volunteers do not reflect the will of the hospital but rather the independent decisions of individuals. “It
can be distinguished between acts performed in the course of duty and those unrelated to official
functions.”29
The Counsel further advances arguments that the focus should remain on punishing the actual
perpetrators rather than shifting blame to institutions or the state. Diverting attention to institutional
liability risks undermining the criminal case against the accused.
27
Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan (1974)
28
Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)
29
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyavati (1962)
Page 33 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (ISSUE NO 3)
A. Regarding Alleged Violations of Article 21:
The Counsel respectfully submits that, it can be said that the victims’ Fundamental right to life
and Dignity is not violated by the Hospital administration and the Police until they are proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The counsel submits that no constitutional violations occurred because:
1. The hospital administration's actions were within constitutional bounds:
A. Standard procedures were followed
B. Administrative delays were procedural, not malicious
C.
Reasonable steps were taken to preserve evidence
2. Police response was appropriate and constitutional:
A.
Investigation commenced promptly upon notification
B.
Due process was followed in evidence collection
C.
Investigation protocols adhered to legal requirements
3. The State's positive obligations under Article 21 were fulfilled:
A.
Security infrastructure was in place
B.
Emergency response systems existed
C.
Administrative oversight was maintained
4. The incident was a criminal act by an individual, not a systemic failure:
A.
Cannot attribute individual criminal acts to institutional failure
B.
Reasonable preventive measures were in place
C.
Response mechanisms were activated appropriately
Article 21 guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to the procedure established by law.”
The Defense Counsel would like to advance arguments with the help of certain landmark
judgements: Page 34 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
“The Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Mere suspicion cannot replace legal proof.”30
“It was emphasized that when there are two views possible, one pointing to the innocence of the accused,
the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”31
The defense counsel submits the significance of Right to a Fair Trial stating that -“The Court emphasized
that a fair trial is not just for the victim but also for the accused. Any procedural irregularities or
prejudiced investigations can be grounds for dismissal.”32
B. Regarding Medical Professionals' Right to Strike:
The counsel submits that while the right to protest exists, it must be balanced against public interest:
1. The right to strike cannot override essential healthcare services:
A.
Public health is paramount
B.
Emergency services must be maintained
C.
Patient care cannot be compromised
2. Violent protests exceed constitutional protection under Article 19:
A.
Vandalism of hospital property is not protected speech
B.
Disruption of medical services endangers lives
C.
Violence falls outside reasonable constitutional protection
3. Alternative forms of protest are available:
A.
Peaceful demonstrations during off-duty hours
B.
Legal channels for grievance redressal
C.
Representative negotiations with administration
4. Reasonable restrictions on protest are constitutional:
A.
Public order must be maintained
30
Datar Singh v. State of Punjab (1974 AIR 1193)
31
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973 AIR 2773)
32
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006 3 SCC 374)
Page 35 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
B.
Essential services must continue
C.
Patient safety is paramount
5. The State's duty to protect public health supersedes individual right to protest:
A.
Healthcare is an essential service
B.
Complete work stoppage is illegal
C.
Minimum service requirements must be met
The counsel submits that the protesting medical professionals do not have a legitimate right to strike
under Article 19.
There is evidence documenting the disruption of medical services caused by protests and vandalism.
The Hon'ble Court must Recognize that constitutional obligations were fulfilled, and declare violent
protests as unconstitutional by Upholding reasonable restrictions on healthcare workers' strikes and
eventually direct immediate resumption of full medical services
The counsel submits that medical professionals have alternative mechanisms, such as representation
through professional associations, dialogues with the government, or legal remedies, to resolve their
grievances without resorting to strikes. They can also file PILs to address systemic issues without
jeopardizing healthcare services.
Strikes disproportionately harm marginalized sections of society who rely on public healthcare services,
violating their rights under Article 21. While emergency services might remain functional during strikes,
the disruption in routine medical services can indirectly lead to life-threatening situations for many.
The inconvenience and harm caused by the strike far outweigh the grievances of the medical
professionals, making the strike an unreasonable and disproportionate exercise of Article 19 rights.
The collective rights of the public to health and life must outweigh individual rights to protest when the
two come into conflict.
While the right to strike is protected under Article 19, it is not absolute. In the context of essential services
like healthcare, reasonable restrictions are justified to prevent disproportionate harm to the public. The
medical professionals should seek alternative, non-disruptive means to address their concerns.
Page 36 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
While Strike may be a good tool for collective bargaining, it becomes illegal as in this case, if it
contravenes a particular provision of law or the terms of contract of employment.33
“No fundamental right to strike exists, especially in essential services like healthcare, and that the
government is justified in imposing reasonable restrictions.”34 T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of
Tamil Nadu (2003 6 SCC 581)
“The Court upheld that the right to assemble peacefully does not extend to activities that infringe on the
rights of others or disturb public order.”35 Delhi Police Commissioner v. Gandhi Peace Foundation
(1986 AIR 1482)
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
33
Gujarat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sabha
34
T. K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003 6 SCC 581)
35
Delhi Police Commissioner v. Gandhi Peace Foundation (1986 AIR 1482)
Page 37 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
The counsel most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Regarding Criminal Charges:
A. Acquit accused Sanju Ray of all charges due to lack of conclusive evidence and inadmissibility of
confession
B. Alternatively, if found guilty, consider mitigating circumstances and impose a sentence less than
capital punishment
C. Dismiss all charges against Sandip Ghoosh and other administrators due to absence of criminal
intent and lack of evidence
2. Regarding Compensation:
A. Reject the demand for exemplary compensation as no institutional liability has been established
B. Alternatively, if any compensation is awarded, direct it to be reasonable and proportionate to
established liability
C. Consider the financial constraints and public nature of the institution
3. Regarding Security Reforms:
A. Acknowledge existing security measures as adequate and reasonable
B. If additional measures are mandated:
1. Allow reasonable time for implementation
2. Consider budgetary constraints
3. Permit phase-wise implementation
4. Consider local conditions and practical feasibility
4. Regarding Administrative Oversight:
A. Utilize existing administrative frameworks rather than constituting new committees
B. If new oversight is mandated:
1. Ensure representation from hospital administration
2. Allow flexibility in implementation timelines
Page 38 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
3. Consider resource limitations
4. Avoid duplication of existing supervisory mechanisms
5. Additional Prayers:
A. Direct immediate cessation of violent protests
B. Order restoration of normal hospital services
C. Protect hospital property and staff from protestor violence
D. Direct protestors to use only peaceful and legal means of grievance redressal
6. General Relief:
A. Pass any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice
B. Award costs of the proceedings to the respondents
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND,
FOREVER PRAY.
Date:
Place:
Filed By:
(Counsel for the Respondents )
SUBMISSIONS
Page 39 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
1. Memorial for Apellant
2. List of Authorities
3. Exhibit A: Copy of the First Information Report (FIR) or any relevant police reports.
4. Exhibit B: Medical records of the deceased trainee doctor, including autopsy report and medical
examination findings.
5. Exhibit C: Confession of Sanju Ray (subject to admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act).
6. Exhibit D: DNA analysis report
7. Exhibit E: Hospital security records, including CCTV footage and incident logs.
8. Exhibit F: Testimonies from hospital staff highlighting lapses in security protocols.
9. Exhibit G: Communication logs or official records showing delays in filing the FIR.
10. Exhibit H: Evidence documenting the disruption of medical services caused by protests and
vandalism.
11. Exhibit I: Records related to the alleged financial irregularities and evidence tampering involving
hospital administrators
12. Exhibit J: Call Details, Messages and email related to the alleged bribery of local police officials
13. Exhibit K: Relevant media reports or news articles on the case.
ANNEXURE
Page 40 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
THE ADDITIONAL FACTS OF EVIDENCE
1.
The presence of Accused at RG Kur Medical College & Hospital, and also at the third floor of the
emergency building where the crime took place during the intervening night of August 8 and 9,
is proved by CCTV footage seized by the CBI and examined by the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory (CFSL).
2.
The presence of accused at RG Kur Medical College & Hospital during the intervening night of
August 9 and 10, is proved by the location of his mobile phone as per CDR (call details record).
3.
The presence of accused DNA on the reference DNA detected from the dead body of the victim
during autopsy.
4.
The presence of blood stains of the victim on the jeans pants and footwear of accused which were
recovered by the police.
5.
The short hair recovered from the scene of the crime matched with that of accused during the forensic
examination by the CFSL.
6.
Pairing of one Bluetooth earphone found at the scene of the crime with the seized mobile phone of
accused. Accused, while seen moving towards the site of the crime on the intervening night of
August 9 and 10, was wearing a Bluetooth earphone neckband but at the time of returning from the
scene of the crime, towards the lift, the said earphone around his neck was missing.
7.
As per the medico-legal test of Accused, the injuries found on his body occurred at any time between
24 and 48 hours prior to the time of examination (1200 hours on August 10) i.e. the injury might
have been caused at any time between 1200 hours of August 9 and 1200 hours of August 10, during
which, the rape and murder of victim was committed.
8.
The injuries found on the body of the accused are blunt force injuries consistent with the marks of
resistance/struggle by the victim.
9.
As per the medico-legal test of accused, there is nothing to suggest that he was incapable of
performing sexual intercourse at the time of his examination.
10. As per the report from CFSL , the breaking of stitching threads between the cloth and elastic was
observed on the brown-coloured undergarment of the victim recovered from the spot. As per the
report, it could be due to dragging it down forcefully.
Page 41 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
11. The CFSL report said that both sides of the waist portion of the Kurti worn by the victim (preserved
during autopsy of the dead body) were found torn, which could be due to sudden pulling up.
12. The central probe agency also mentioned in the charge sheet that, during the investigation conducted
by the agency so far, the involvement of accused has been clearly established in the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 64, 66, 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
13. The 33-year-old Roy initially confessed to the crime. However, he made a U-turn during
the polygraph test, claiming he was being framed and was innocent. Accused was arrested by the
Police a day after the body of the 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor was found in the seminar
hall of RG Kur Medical College.
NARCO test not done for the accused
The crime scene was not well preserved disturbances evident on the scene”, a team from the Central
Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), has said in its report.
The report, compiled by a 14-member multi-institutional medical board (MIMB) comprising senior
doctors, scientists and forensic experts who visited the crime scene several times, came days after the
August 9 rape and murder of the junior doctor in the seminar room of the state-run RG Kur Medical
College and Hospital.
Page 42 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
Back Cover
For Fr. C. Rodrigues International Moot Court Competition, 2025
Agnel School of Law, Navi Mumbai
TEAM CODE: C
DECLARATION
We hereby declare that this memorial is submitted for the Fr. C. Rodrigues International Moot Court
Competition 2025 and it represents the original work of the team members with all its sources as
mentioned in the index of authority.
We further declare that we have complied with all the rules of the competition
.
( Memorial For Respondents )
Date: 11 January 2025
Place: Navi Mumbai
[PLEASE NOTE: This memorial contains exactly 8792 words]
Page 43 of 44
( MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS )
----x----
Page 44 of 44