TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………..
INDEX AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..…..
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………....
STATEMENTS OF FACTS………………………………………………….……………..
STATEMENT OF
ISSUES…………………………………………………………………..
1. Whether this issue is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court of Genovia?
2. Whether Ayaan’s conviction of abetment of suicide is valid?
3. Whether Ayaan was convicted of a lesser offence by sessions court?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………......
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….
PRAYER……………………………………….…………………………………………….
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

S. NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

1 Art Articles

2 S. Sections

3 COE Constitution of Elbonia

4 HC High court

5 IT Act Information Technology Act

6 SC Supreme Court

7 EPC Elbonian Penal Code

8 Hon’ble Honourable

9 No Number

10 u/s Under Section

11 ETC Etcetera
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED
1. Information Technology Act,2000
2. Elbonia Penal Code, 1860
3. Criminal Procedural Code, 1973
4. Constitution of Elbonia,

CASE LAW
1. Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited (2007)
2. Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P v. State Of Bihar (2002)
3. Dayawati V. Inderjit, (AIR 1966 SC 1423)
4. Garikapati V. Subbiah choudhary, AIR 1957 SC 540.
5. Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab
6. M. Mohan v State
7. State v. Shailesh,
8. Rajagopal v. The State of Tamil Nadu
9. Suhas Katti v. the State of Tamil Nadu (2004)
10. Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Single Judge Bench Case (2023)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS

The petitioner humbly approaches the Honourable High Court under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedural Code, 1973, which reads as follows,

374. Appeals from convictions.-

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more
than seven years has been passed, may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.
 SUMMER OF FACTS

In the Union of Elbonia, a democratic nation with a federal structure, digitalization stands at
the forefront of societal transformation. Genovia, the nation's capital and a Union Territory
with its own legislative assembly, epitomises this digital revolution. It is projected that by
June 2024, Elbonia will host approximately 700 million internet users. Advocating for
widespread digital access, the Elbonian government envisions a future where every citizen is
equipped with a smartphone, and technological advancements, like drones, are commonplace
in every field. The Elbonian constitution is the supreme law of the country and it has a
well-placed Cyber law called the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Ayaan, a 30-year-old male from Elbonia, works as an executive in a reputed multinational

corporation. Despite having no formal training in computer applications, he is a computer
enthusiast with a deep understanding of internet technology. He has been an active user of
Flashgram, a platform particularly popular in Elbonia. He has approximately 20,000
followers and follows around 100,000 accounts from diverse genders and ethnic
backgrounds. He is known for sharing informational posts related to technology.

Tara, teacher at a reputed school, sent a follow request to Ayaan on June 10, 2020, during a
time when the entire world was grappling with the pandemic and subjected to lockdown
restrictions. Ayaan quickly accepted the request, and they began to engage in private chats.
Their conversations were consistently friendly and respectful. Tara's marital status was not
mentioned in her profile and was not a topic of discussion in their chats. However, in one of
their phone conversations, she revealed that she was married to Kiran, who has a job
requiring frequent travel and is often away from home. She shared with Ayaan her feelings of
loneliness and the challenges she faced in trying to conceive a child with Kiran.

Over time, their relationship deepened, leading to the exchange of intimate photos, sexting,
and cybersex. During these interactions, Ayaan consistently screen-recorded these private
acts and saved the videos on his laptop or mobile phone. This online relationship continued
for about three years. During their relationship, there were instances where Tara encouraged
Ayaan’s affection and willingly reciprocated too. She knew that Ayaan was recording their
sexual interactions but never objected to it.
Meanwhile, the relationship between Tara and her husband, Kiran, began to improve, and
they started undergoing treatment to have a child. Given these developments, Tara decided to
end her relationship with Ayaan. On 23 rd October 2023, Tara called Ayaan over the phone
and expressed her desire to end their relationship. To her utter dismay, Ayaan not only
refused to acknowledge the end of their relationship but also began threatening her,
demanding that she reciprocate his feelings and divorce her husband. Tara steadfastly
refused, leading to a heated argument during which Ayaan resorted to using abusive language
towards her and blackmailed her with the videos he had taken of them in compromising
positions. He even sent her one of the videos as proof of his threats.

Frightened by the change in his behaviour, she immediately ended the call and blocked him
on all social media platforms as well as on her phone. A week later, she began receiving calls
and messages from two to three unknown numbers, with the callers sounding like Ayaan,
threatening her with severe consequences if she ended her relationship with him. Moreover,
she encountered Ayaan several times when she left her house, successfully avoiding
confrontation on each occasion. On top of all this, a video featuring Tara completely naked
and engaging in cybersex with Ayaan surfaced online and was widely shared among students,
parents, and colleagues of Tara. This resulted in Tara being suspended from work, pending an
inquiry, and sparked much speculation about her character within the school community.

Unable to endure the constant stalking, abusive and threatening calls, and the public
circulation of private videos, Tara disclosed everything to Kiran on the evening of 5 th
November 2023. This disclosure led to a heated argument between them, during which Kiran
demanded a divorce. Following the quarrel, Kiran slept in another room. When he woke up
in the morning and went to look for Tara, he found her hanging in the bedroom, with a
handwritten note beside her, blaming Ayan for her death. The sex scandal and Tara's suicide
attracted significant media attention. Fearing severe consequences, Ayaan absconded from
his place of work and residence.

A special police team was formed to arrest Ayaan and the team deployed undercover
informants and worked on technical surveillance to track him down. Leveraging IP addresses
among other details, they pinpointed Ayaan's hideout, orchestrated a trap, and successfully
captured him on 10 th December, 2023.
Upon his arrest, the police confiscated two mobile phones, three SIM cards, and a laptop.
One of the SIM cards was identified as the source of the threatening calls received by Tara.
Ayaan denied making any abusive or threatening calls to Tara. He acknowledged his
dissatisfaction with the abrupt end to their relationship, which he claimed was unilateral, but
insisted he never intended to harm or injure her, professing his love for her. Additionally, a
video of their intimate act was discovered in the trash folder of his laptop, but it was not the
one that had been leaked to the public domain. Ayaan claimed that the videos and the sexual
acts were consensual, and that Tara had never objected to them until after they had broken
up.

In the months leading up to Tara's tragic decision, Ayaan had been attending therapy for his
compulsive behaviour towards relationships, showing a genuine effort to change his actions
that were not intended to harm Tara. Correspondences between Ayaan and his therapist,
which Ayaan willingly shared with the police, indicated his remorse and his understanding of
the gravity of his actions, although he maintained that the sharing of intimate content was
perceived as mutual digital intimacy.

Following a thorough investigation, police filed a charge sheet against Ayaan for committing
offences under sections 306 r/w 34, 354C, 354D, 506, and 509 of the Elbonian Penal Code,
as well as sections 67, 67A, and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The
prosecution presented evidence of Tara’s death note and the incriminating electronic evidence
recovered from Ayaan. They argued that Ayaan had the ill intention of harming Tara after
their breakup. Furthermore, it was highlighted that he was in possession of SIM cards
allegedly used to call Tara and harass her.

On May 7, 2024, the Sessions Court of Metropolis City convicted Ayaan, sentencing him to 8
years of imprisonment and imposing a fine of INR 10,000 for abetment of suicide alone,
while maintaining that the prosecution failed to prove the other charges beyond reasonable
doubt. Ayaan then appealed to the High Court of Genovia, challenging his conviction.
Similarly, Kiran appealed to the High Court of Genovia, challenging the lesser sentencing
given to Ayaan and alleging that the lower court had erred in dismissing the charges related
to online harassment, Voyeurism and stalking against Ayaan. The High Court of Genovia
admitted both petitions, clubbed them together, and scheduled the matter for hearing on 1 st
June, 2024
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether this issue is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court of Genovia?

2. Whether Ayaan’s conviction of abetment of suicide is valid?

3. Whether Ayaan was convicted of a lesser offence by sessions court?

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether this issue is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court of Genovia?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that present appeal is maintainable
before the HC of Genovia. The present appeal is maintainable under S.372 of the Criminal
Procedural Code,1973 because the session court has convicted the accused for the offence.

2.Whether Ayaan’s conviction of abetment of suicide is valid?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble High Court of Genovia, that Ayaan’s conviction for
the offence and 8 years of imprisonment is not valid. Here Ayaan was accused of the guilt of
abeting Tara to commit suicide under S.306 of the Elbonian Penal code. This is not valid as
Ayaan had no intention of making her to commit suicide.

3. Whether Ayaan was convicted of a lesser offence by sessions court?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High court of Genovia, that Ayaan’s conviction is
not appropriate and the other offences committed by Ayaan was not taken into consideration
by the sessions court and no conviction has been brought on to issues like stalking,
voyeurism and online harassment.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. Whether this issue is maintainable before the Hon’ble High Court of Genovia

1.1 Maintainability under S.374 of Criminal Procedural Code

The present appeal is maintainable under S.372 of the Criminal Procedural Code,1973
because the session court has convicted the accused for the offence. This section gives the
right to the convict to make an appeal to the High Court for the orders issued by the session
courts. According to S.372 (2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years [has been passed against him or against any other
person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High Court.

In this case Ayaan has been convicted for the offence of abetment to suicide and he was
imprisoned for 8 years with a fine. Ayaan has made an appeal concerning this matter to the
HC of Genovia. As per the provisions under Criminal Procedural Code an appeal can be
made to High Court when the convicted was given a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years and henceforth this appeal made to the Hon’ble High court is maintainable.

In the case of Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Company Limited (2007), it has
been stated that an offender who has been convicted has the unalienable right to exercise his
or her appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code. In light of Article 21‘s broad
definition, the ability to appeal a conviction that has an impact on one’s freedom is likewise a
basic right. Therefore, the right of appeal cannot be limited in any way or subjected to any
conditions. The right to appeal is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and
Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Also in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P v. State Of Bihar (2002) it was stated
that, when dealing with an appeal from an acquittal preferred under Section 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the high court has much broader jurisdiction than a revisional court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order
of acquittal at the instance of a private party. All arguments that can be made in favour of the
petition for revision can also be made in the appeal, but not the other way around. When the
state’s appeal against the verdict of acquittal is denied, the verdict of the lower court becomes
final. To thereafter exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the order of acquittal at the instance of a private party might not be a
proper exercise of discretion in such a scenario.

Thus, it can be seen that there exists no contrary to S.374 of Criminal Procedural Code with
the present case’s appeal made to High Court and thus, they are maintainable.

1.2 Maintainability under Constitutional provisions of Elbonia

In Elbonia, the right to appeal is a fundamental part of the legal system and is enshrined in
the Constitution and various laws. The right to appeal allows individuals who are dissatisfied
with the decision of a lower court or tribunal to have their case reviewed by a higher court to
ensure justice is served. This principle is vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring all
individuals have access to a fair and impartial judicial process.

The right to appeal is recognized and protected under the Elbonian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court of
Elbonia has consistently interpreted this right to encompass access to justice, which includes
the right to appeal.

In the case of Dayawati V. Inderjit, (AIR 1966 SC 1423) it was stated that, An appeal has
been said to be ‘the right of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to
redress the error of the Court below’. The only difference between a suit and an appeal is that
an appeal ‘only reviews and corrects the proceeding in a cause already constituted but does
not create the cause.

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles relating to the right of appeal in
Garikapati V. Subbiah choudhary, AIR 1957 SC 540.These are:
 1. That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps
in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as
one legal proceeding.
2. The right of appeal is not just a matter of procedure but is a substantive right.
3. The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal, then
in force, are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit.
4. The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter a superior Court accrues
to the litigant and exists on and from the date the suit commences and, although it
may be actually exercised when the adverse judgement is pronounced, such right to
be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or
proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of
filing of the appeal.
5. This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it is
so provided expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise.

On analysing various precedents and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble supreme court
it can be said that the present case of appeal to the Hon’ble High Court is maintainable before
the High Court of Genovia.

ISSUE 2. Whether Ayaan’s conviction of abetment of suicide is valid ?

Here Ayaan was accused of the guilt of abeting Tara to commit suicide under S.306 of the
Elbonian Penal code. This is not valid as Ayaan had no intention of making her to commit
suicide. In this case there was a mutual relationship between Ayaan and Tara, and Ayaan was
not mentally stable when he faced rejection from Tara and it was also stated by Ayaan during
the investigation.

Under Section 306, IPC, if any person commits suicide, the person found to have abetted the
commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine. The Supreme Court in
multiple cases has defined the "essential ingredients" for an offence to qualify as an abetment
of suicide:
1. There must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commission of an offence of suicide.
 2. Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not
be sufficient in itself, unless there are allegations of such actions on the part of
the accused which compelled the commission of suicide.
3. To constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, there must be an
allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of an
offence of suicide.

The court held that “abetment” involves a mental process of instigating a person into doing
something.
"A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii)
he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he
intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to
complete the abetment as a crime," the court said.

By analysing all these needed essentials from the precedents, it is clearly found that Ayaan
had no intention to commit the offence of suicide by inducing Tara and Ayaan was not in a
stable metal state during the course of time. This is basically due to the sudden rejection he
faced from Tara. It was clearly stated that the relationship that they had was mutual and Tara
had an intention of sharing all her personal stuff to Ayaan without any restriction and she was
aware of all things that was done by herself and Ayaan. This has a strong base that they both
were in a very close relationship for about three years and this was unknown to Kiran. Here
we can clearly sense that there is no external force or any influence on either of them by
them. These facts make it clear that no act of Ayaan supports the act of Tara.

In the landmark judgement of M. Mohan v State, the Apex Court held that there should be a
close link between the act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. If the link is not
present, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the
commission of suicide. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support
to the commission of the offence.

And in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. the State of Punjab, it is mentioned that the
necessary ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To
encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring about the
commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of any of these
constituents would militate against this condemnation.

The sessions court has sentenced that Ayaan was convicted for the offence of abetment of
Suicide. The judgement was solely based only on the death note by Tara. But, this will not
amount to convict Ayaan as abetting her to commit suicide. The facts state that Tara’s
husband demanded divorce from her after she exposed off her relationship with Ayaan and
the reputation that she had in her school got defamed and this could be a reason for her
suicide and this could also have cost her life.

Abetment of Suicide basically needs inducement of victim by the convict. But, the facts of no
instance of creating such inducement to Tara by Ayaan. The mental state of Tara needs to be
known as she hung herself, the night after having a tempered conversations and arguments
with her husband Kiran and due to all those pressure that she had on her could have made her
to take such a decision. Convicting Ayaan for such offence is not valid and needs to be
re-examined by the high court of the facts of the issue.

Thus, on analysing such facts and the basics held in the precedents the appellant submits to
the Hon’ble high court that the conviction of abetment of suicide by the sessions court on
Ayaan is not valid.

ISSUE 3: Whether Ayaan was convicted of a lesser offense by sessions court?

Ayaan’s conviction is not appropriate and the other offenses committed by Ayaan was not
taken into consideration by the sessions court and no conviction has been brought on to such
issues. From the facts of the issues it is clear that Ayaan has committed the offence of
stalking, voyeurism, online harassment and publishing of obscene material thus violating the
privacy of Tara and defaming her reputation.

The offences that was not considered by the sessions court that was committed by Ayaan
were,

● Voyeurism u/s 354C of EPC

● Stalking u/s 354D of EPC
 ● Violation of Privacy u/s 66E of IT Act

The facts clearly state that Ayaan screen recorded all the intimate visuals of them both.
Though Tara didn’t restrict Ayaan from recording, that does not amount to giving permission
to publish them. Publishing of such obscene without the consent is an offence and this
amounts to Voyuerism under EPC.

The Section 66E IT Act, 2008 recognizes the right to protect the human body from
unreasonable and obscene intrusion by video technology and adequately protects the
individual privacy from the crime of video voyeurism which destroys personal privacy and
dignity by secretly videotaping or photographing unsuspecting individuals. It is a crime if the
woman gave consent for the pictures to be taken but did not give consent for these private
pictures to be shared online.

Section 66E: Penalty for invasion of privacy: Whoever, intentionally or knowingly, captures,
publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without that person’s
consent, in a manner that invades that person’s privacy, shall be punished with imprisonment
that may last up to three years or with a fine of not more than two lakh rupees, or with both.

(a) “Transmit” means to transfer a visual picture electronically with the intention that
it be viewed by a person or people.
(b) “capture” means to videotape, photograph, film, or otherwise record a visual image
(c) “Private area” refers to the female breast, pubic region, or genitalia when they are
exposed or covered by undergarments.

(d) The term “publishes” refers to reproduction in putting it online or in print, and
making it accessible to the public;
e) “under conditions invading privacy” refers to situations where a person
may reasonably believe that; –
(1) He or she could undress alone without worrying that a photograph of his or her
private area would be taken; or
(2) Regardless of whether the individual is in a public or private setting, no portion of his
or her private region would be seen by the general public.
In the 2019 case of State v. Shailesh, Justice Susheel Bala Dagar determined that
while voyeurism is a silly form of amusement for men, it traumatises women mentally.
These actions violate a woman’s right to privacy, making her feel insecure in settings
that are
typically designed to be safe for women. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its 1995 ruling in
Rajagopal v. The State of Tamil Nadu in this case, adding that the right to privacy includes
the “right of being left alone.”

Suhas Katti v. the State of Tamil Nadu (2004), was the first landmark case in Indian history
pertaining to cybercrimes. The case was filed by a divorced woman against a man who used
to send her unwanted explicit photos and messages. He was keenly interested in marrying
her. He regularly sends her vulgar and obscene messages and photos through a false email
account made with the intention of harassing the victim. The victim filed a complaint and the
police subsequently investigated the matter and arrested him. It was later found that the man
was a family member of the woman and started harassing her after she denied his proposal to
marry him. The accused was found guilty under Section 469, 509 of IPC as well as Section
67 of the IT Act. The accused was compelled to pay a fine and was held up at central
imprisonment.

The facts state that Ayaan was continuously involved in stalking Tara in public whenever she
came out of her house and he constantly tried to connect with her through phone calls,
messages and he threatened and abused her. Sec.354D of EPC States that,
Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication,

This Sec can be understood as such,

(i) Follows a Woman: This involves pursuing a woman physically, shadowing her
movements, or keeping a watch on her in person.
(ii) Contacts or Attempts to Contact Repeatedly: The man repeatedly tries to
communicate with the woman. This communication can be in the form of calls, messages, or
other means.
In the case of Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. The State of Maharashtra (2016), the Bombay
High Court dealt with the tragic death of a woman due to ongoing harassment and stalking by
the accused. The victim was relentlessly pursued and stalked by the offender, even during her
work, despite her clear resistance and lack of interest. The High Court emphasised the
importance of invoking Section 354D of the IPC in conjunction with abetment to suicide to
hold the guilty accountable.

And in the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Single Judge Bench Case (2023), a single judge
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused a bail application for an 18-year-old boy accused
of stalking. The court observed that some crimes are driven by financial gain, while others,
like stalking, seek psychological gratification. The petitioner in this case had persistently
stalked a 16-year-old girl with the aim of deriving mental satisfaction. In this case it was
stated that Stalking, voyeurism and following the victim not only cause severe
embarrassment and harassment but also undermine the victim’s self-esteem. This is
especially pertinent in societies with feudalistic norms, where the perpetrator considers his
actions a form of conquest, sending a disturbing message to the community.

Thus, these provisions support the facts that Ayaan has committed the offences of Voyeurism,
stalking and online harassment which were not given importance by the Sessions court and
was silent.
 PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:

1. To take into account Ayaan's documented mental health issues and his proactive efforts to seek
therapy, recognizing that these factors significantly impacted his actions and level of culpability.

2. To reduce the 8-year sentence imposed on Ayaan,considering his mental health condition and
the principle of proportionality. We request a sentence that emphasizes rehabilitation and mental
health treatment over punitive

3. Find that Ayaan's actions do not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the
Elbonian Penal Code, as there was no intentional provocation or incitement leading to Tara's
suicide.

4. To hold that Ayaan's conduct during the consensual relationship does not demonstrate a clear
intention to insult Tara's modesty under Section 509 of the Elbonian Penal Code, and therefore
does not meet the criteria for this offense

AND / OR

To pass any suitable orders that it deems fit in the interest of law, equity, and a good conscience
and thus render justice.And for this, the petitioner as in the duty bound shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER