PAGE 1 TEAM CODE: BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS COURT OF BAMBI, THANE S.C. NO.: 123 of 2014 State of Bambi...PROSECUTION Vs 1) Panna Boy 2) Saba 3) Jaimil...DEFENCE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION Most Respectfully submitted to the Hon ble Sessions Court of Bambi, Thane.
PAGE 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS S.NO. TOPIC PAGES 1. Index of Authorities 3 2. Abbreviations 5 3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7 4. Statement of Charges 8 5. Statement of Facts 10 6. Summary of Arguments 11 7. Arguments Advanced 13 8. Prayer for Relief 28
PAGE 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES INDIAN :- 1. THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 2. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 4. MODEL PRISON MANUAL 5. MAHARASHTRA PRISON MANUAL CASES S.NO. CASES 1. Ramesh Chander, AIR 1966 Punj 93 2. Sunilakhya vs. H.M.Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266 3. P.R. Ramakrishnan vs. Subbaramma, AIR 1988 Ker 18: 1988 CrLJ 124 4. Government Advocate, B.&O. vs Gopalbandhu Das,(1992) 1 Pat 414 5. Asha Parekh vs State of Bihar, 1977 CrLJ 21(Pat) 6. Narottamadas vs Maganbhai,1984 CrLJ 1790(Guj) 7. Aruna Asafali vs Purna Narayan, 1984 CrLJ 1121(Gau) 8. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan, (1966) 68 Bom LR 629 (SC) 9. Monson vs Tussands Ltd. (1984) 1 QB 671,692 10. Gobinda Pershad Pandey vs Garth, (1900) 28 Cal 63 11. Chandrakant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 1557 12. Vijayan vs State of Kerala, 1999(3) SCC 54 13. Kehar Singh vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883 14. K S Narayan vs S Gopinathan, 1982 CrLJ 1611(Mad.) 15. Indrasana vs Sia Ram, 1970 CrLJ 647 16. Jadunandan Singh and Anr. Vs Emperor, AIR 1941 Pat 129 17. Romesh Chandra Arora vs State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 154 18. Shyam Deogharia, (1953) 33 Pat. 122 19. Amar Singh vs Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164
PAGE 4 20. State of UP vs Dr R.P Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 21. Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20 22. Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (Ori) 23. State of Maharashtra v. Vilas PandurangPatil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1064 (Bom) 24. Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ NOC 16 (Mad) 25. Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 CrLJ 2190 (Raj) 26. State of Orissa v. Abdul Wahid, 1990 CrLJ NOC 136 (Ori) 27. Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 CrLJ 4438 (SC) 28. HarbansLal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 819 29. Swaminathan v. State, 1993 CrLJ 2379 (Mad) 29. Ashok Kumarv.State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 265 30. Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ 414 (SC) BOOKS 1. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal Dhirajlal and Professional Publication 2. The Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal Dhirajlal. 3. The Law of Evidence 4. The Criminal Manual by Professional Publication WEBSITES 1. www.manufast.com 2. www.mahapolice.gov.in 3. www.humanrightsinitiative.org 4. www.bprd.nic.in 5. Mhada.maharashtra.gov.in
PAGE 5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AIR All India Reporter BOM Bombay CL Clause CO. Company ORI Orissa S. Section SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Cases SCR Supreme Court Reporter SUPP. Supplementary U.O.I Union of India U.P. Uttar Pradesh AC Appeal Cases AIR All India Reporter All. Allahabad A.P. Andhra Pradesh Bom. Bombay Cal. Calcutta CrLJ Criminal Law Journal CrPC Criminal Procedure Code Cut. Cuttak HC High Court H.P Himachal Pradesh ILR Indian Law Review HPC Hindon Penal Code Kant. Karnataka
PAGE 6 Ker. Mad. M.P Ori. Ors. Punj. Raj. U.P Kerela Madras Madhya Pradesh Orissa Others Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh
PAGE 7 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Hon ble Sessions Court of Bambi, Thane has the Jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present case by virtue of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads As follows:- Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.
PAGE 8 STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1. I, Judge of the Sessions Court of Bambi, Thane, hereby charge, (i) Mr Panna Boy (ii) Mr Saba (iii) Mr Jaimil, as follows: That you, on or about the 16 th day of February 2014, at Bombay, printed posters and advertisements of the movie Hit Factory, a commercial venture, knowing or having reasons to believe that the same was defamatory, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 501, this coupled with Criminal Conspiracy having a Common Intention Under Section 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance the Court of Sessions. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on said charge. 2. I, Judge of the Sessions Court of Bambi, Thane, hereby charge, (i) Mr Saba (ii) Mr Jaimil, as follows: That you, on or about the 16 th day of February 2014, at Bombay, put Ms Naika in fear of injury, namely by calls threatening her to face dire consequences if she fails to co-operate for the completion of the movie Hit Factory, a commercial venture, in order to commit extortion, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 385, Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on said charge.
PAGE 9 3. I, Judge of the Sessions Court of Bambi, Thane, hereby charge you, Mr Panna Boy as follows: That you on or about in the month of March 2013, were sentenced by The Supreme Court of India to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment under Arms Act, 1959 and which punishment was remitted by granting parole in the month of February 2014 on your accepting the conditions and which you accepted and which you knowingly violated in the same period by secretly shooting some scenes for the movie Hit Factory, a commercial venture, and that you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 227, Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance of the Court of Sessions. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on said charge.
PAGE 10 STATEMENT OF FACTS Panna Boy, popularly known as Hero Panna is an actor. In 1993, Panna Boy was arrested for illegal possession of arms. In March 2013, the Supreme Court of Barata held him guilty under the Arms Act, 1959. He was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. Between the years 2005 and 2009 Mr.Panna had acted in four hit movies. One film known as Hit Factory with Ms. Naika was incomplete. Only a few scenes were remaining, for which Ms. Naika had declined earlier. The producer of the movie, Mr. Saba had also borrowed and invested a huge amount of money on the movie. On the 14 th of August, 2013 Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil met Ms. Naika s at her residence, demanding her cooperation to complete the movie. Ms. Naika categorically refused, ordered them to leave and requested them not to meet her again. When they showed resistance, she called her security guard and showed the visitors the door. On February 3 rd 2014, Mr. Panna was granted a 30 day parole for the second time, due to his wife s ill health. During his parole, Mr. Panna used to visit the Star Hospital regularly and also visited the Mall once along with his daughter. On February 5, 2014 Mr. Jaimil got himself admitted to Star Hospital for chest pain. Panna as usual came with his daughter to visit his wife. Later his daughter was sent with a care taker. After an hour, he entered another room where Smt. Mashaal, a yesteryears actress and Ms Poonam, were present. On 8 th February 2014 Panna was seen in Central Mall with his daughter. At the mall a set was created where Ms. Poonam was present. On February 14, 2014, ads of the movie Hit Factory were published in several newspapers and magazines. At the same time a controversy broke on the regular release of Panna on parole due to his political connections. On hearing the rumours and on seeing the ads, on 16 th February 2014, Ms Naika filed a suit in the High Court of Bambi for permanent injunction of the movie.the same evening Ms. Naika received two anonymous phone calls on her mobile threatening her and her family of dire consequences. On 17 February 2014 she filed a FIR in the Bambi Central police station against Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil and named Mr. Hero Panna as a co-conspirator. The Assistant Commissioner took cognizance of the complaint filed an FIR and ordered enquiry due to which Panna s parole was cancelled and he was sent back to prison. A warrant was obtained from the metropolitan magistrate for the arrest of Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil for engaging in prohibited activity with a convict. Post investigation and submission of report under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Code and the Learned Magistrate transferred the Case to the Hon ble Sessions Court of Bambi.
PAGE 11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. THE ACCUSED HAVE CONSPIRED TO DEFAME MS. NAIKA. It is humbly submitted that in light of adequate circumstantial evidence and the onus of proof on the Prosecution being higher, the guilt of the Accused for the crime of defamation under Section 501 and 502 of the IPC, has been determined beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it is submitted that the case of the Defence fails to put forth any evidentiary grounds disproving the involvement of the accused. It is also submitted that there is a motive/ intention behind this and the Accused also satisfy all the ingredients required for Criminal Conspiracy. In the light of the illegal actions, coupled with the common intention, present with the mental attitudes, the prime ingredients constituting the offence of criminal conspiracy are satisfied bringing the accused within the ambit of Section 120B r/w Section.34 of the IPC. 2. MR SABA AND MR JAIMIL HAS COMMITED EXTORTION AND IS LIABLE TO BE TRIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.385 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. It is humbly submitted that in the light of the submissions by the investigating officer the accused has been determined beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of threatening for extortion. Threatening someone to demand for something which the person is unwilling to give, amounts to extortion. The threat in this very case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, hence amounting to extortion. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Defence fails to put forth any evidentiary grounds disproving the involvement of the accused.
PAGE 12 3. PANNA BOY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODEL PRISON MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS IN INDIA AND MAHARASHTRA PRISON MANUAL, 1979 AND HE IS LIABLE TO BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE. It is humbly submitted that the circumstantial evidence being adequate, the Accused can be convicted under either of the aforementioned two Acts. Parole was granted to the accused in order to take care of his ailing wife and give company to his daughter but on the contrary he has been shooting for his incomplete movie hereby violating the basic conditions of the parole and was also involved in criminal conspiracy (under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code) along with the other two accused and he has committed defamation under section 501 & 502 of the Indian Penal Code the accused stands guilty under section 227 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. THE INVESTIGATION COMPLIES WITH THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW IN THE PRESENT CASE. It is submitted in that in light of the evidence put forth and the causal chain of events submitted for consideration, the guilt of the accused is determined beyond reasonable doubt by the reports of the Police Officer on completion of the investigation which were forwarded to the Magistrates Court, under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The investigation has been fair and unprejudiced, thus following the procedure established by law.
PAGE 13 ARGUMENTS 1. THE ACCUSED HAVE CONSPIRED TO DEFAME MS. NAIKA. It is humbly submitted to the Hon ble Court that essence of defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description of pain which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow- creatures, and those inconveniences to which a person who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. The offence under section 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code is a very distinct offence. The person engraving or printing and selling such defamatory matter abets the offence. These sections make such abetment a distinct offence. These are read as follows respectively:- Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory. Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 1 Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 2 I. ESSENTIALS TO THIS SECTION The ingredients of section 501 are Printing or engraving any matter; Knowledge or reason to believe that such matter is defamatory. If the publisher is also the printer of the newspaper in which defamatory matter is printed, he is 1 Section 501of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 Section 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
PAGE 14 liable to be covered under this section 3. An offence under section 502 of the IPC requires 2 essential ingredients selling or offering for sale any printed or engraved substance; knowledge that such substance contains defamatory matter. Prima Facie, it appears that the Accused Mr. Panna Boy, Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil, were having foreknowledge of Ms. Naika s disinterest and disassociation towards the movie Hit Factory vide her personal interview taken by prominent newspaper and also in the meeting between Naika and Jaimil and Saba at Naika s residence where she refused to act in the remaining scenes of the same 4. III. THE ACCUSED HAVE COMMITED THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION The defamatory matter must be published, that is, communicated to some person other than the person about whom it is addressed 5. Communicating defamatory matter only to the person defamed is not publication 6. Thus, such defamatory matter does not amount to Defamation unless it is published. The words must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established 7.Where a film which was alleged to be defamatory of lawyers as a class formed the basis of a defamation case against the producers including artists and Chairman of the Central Board of Censors it was held that though the offence of defamation can be committed in regard to a company or collection of persons in view of Explanation 2 to s. 499, I.P.C. 8 By the English law, defamation is a crime only when it is committed by writing, printing, engraving or some similar process. The distinction which the English criminal law makes between written and spoken defamation is generally 3 Ramesh chander, AIR 1966 Punj 93 4 Para. 6 and 7 of the Statement of Facts 5 Sunilakhya v. H.M. Jadwet, AIR 1968 Cal 266 6 P.R. Ramakrishnan v. Subbaramma, AIR 1988 Ker 18 : 1988 Cr LJ124. 7 Government Advocate, B. & O. v. Gopalbandhu Das,(1922) 1 Pat 414. C.L Sagar v. Mayawati, complainant by stating in a public meeting that the person with long moustache in the party was a corrupt person. The Complainant could not show that he was the only member of the party with long moustache. The newspaper report of the meeting did not carry any such remark. No offence made out. 8 Asha Parekh v. State Of Bihar, 1977 Cr LJ 21 (Pat.) : see also Narottamdas v. Maganbhai, 1984 Cr LJ 1790 (Guj.); Aruna Asafali v. Purna Narayan, 1984 Cr LJ 1121 (Gau)
PAGE 15 defended on the ground that written defamation is likely to be more widely spread and to be more permanent than spoken defamation. In the second place, it is not necessarily, the fact that the harm caused by defamation is proportioned to the extent to which the defamation is circulated. Under this section, Intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the expression harm means harm to the reputation of the aggrieved party 9. The words visible representation will include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. For instance, a statue, a caricature, and effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs, or pictures may constitute a libel 10. It is not necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the scandalous imputation alleged; it is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm, or knew, or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the Complainant 11. IV.THE ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED BRING THEM WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 501 AND 502 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE Under the Indian Penal Code Defamation has been made an offence without any reference to its tendency to cause acts of illegal violence. The gist of the offence is the mental suffering and harm to reputation caused to the person defamed. Here in the given case the accused have conspired against Ms Naika by releasing posters and advertisements of the movie Hit Factory where her name was printed, in spite of her constant refusal to be associated with the same. Due to this, her reputation amongst her fans, family, friends, colleagues, etc. would be tarnished as they would think that she contradicts herself way too much because in her personal interview she had publicly stated that she no longer wanted to be associated with the movie and with the posters out it is being portrayed that she has double standards and that she is a person who blows hot and 9 Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan, (1966) 68 Bom LR 629 (SC) 10 Monson v. Tussands Ltd. (1894) 1 QB 671, 692 11 Gobinda Pershad Pandey v. Garth, (1900) 28 Cal 63; Pimento, (1920) 22 Bom LR 1224;
PAGE 16 cold, her fans who idealize her would feel dejected. For an Actress her fans are her source of livelihood and if she loses her fans she loses her career. Hence this act of defamation can cause grave harm to her acting carrier. On 14 th February, 2014, there were full page ads of Releasing Shortly the movie Hit Factory, in popular newspapers and magazines. On seeing the advertisements, Ms. Naika, on 16 th February, 2014 filed a suit in the High Court of Bambi for permanent injunction of the movie as she acted only in a few scenes and has categorically stated to the producers that she has completely dissociated from the movie and had returned the advance taken. On the same day after she filed the suit, she received threatening calls to co-operate with the director and producer to complete the movie Hit Factory. She has inter alia, alleged that there is some conspiracy and they have used a lookalike to complete the movie. If the movie is released with her in the lead role, it would cause irreparable damage to her image and career. II.EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED HAVE PRINTED DEFAMATORY MATERIAL It is humbly submitted to the Hon ble Court that the posters annexed as Exhibit 5 hereby, are the direct documentary evidence 12 showing the printed defamatory matter in order to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. It is also submitted that in the present case the crime under section 501 & 502 as proved above has been committed along with a Criminal Conspiracy backed by a common intention which is defined under Section 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively: When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a Criminal Conspiracy. 12 Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
PAGE 17 Whoever is a party to such criminal conspiracy shall be punished with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or above. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. 13 I.THE ACCUSED HAD A COMMON INTENTION - The expression common intention as stated in section 34 implies a pre-arranged plan and acting concert pursuant to the plan. It must be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan and the Common Intention in this case is the Completion of the movie may it be by illegal means. There is not much substantial difference between conspiracy as defined in Section 120 B and acting on a common intention as contemplated in Section 34. While in the former the gist of the offence is their engagement and association to break the law even though the illegal act does not follow, the gist of offence is the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention of all the offenders, which means that there should be a unity of criminal behaviour resulting in something. Before any person is convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC, the ingredients that are required to be satisfied are that such person along with his co-conspirators have committed a criminal act and the act was done in furtherance of common intention. Prima Facie, in the present case it appears that the accused did have a common intention to finish off the remaining scenes of the movie and release the movie as soon as possible. Mr. Saba was under 13 Chandrakant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 1557
PAGE 18 heavy pressure for returning the loans to all the creditors. Mr. Jaimil was pressurized by Mr. Saba as per the investigation officer s observations. As Mr. Saba had already paid Mr. Panna the advance sum for the movie it was Mr. Panna s moral duty to finish the remaining scenes of the movie. Thus, they did have a common intention. II.THE ACCUSED ARE INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120B it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful Act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence 14. In the present case, Mr. Panna Boy, Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy along with having a common intention. Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil had foreknowledge about Mr. Panna Boy s parole and could have easily influenced him to try and obtain parole. It is true that Mr. Saba was under a lot of pressure from his creditors to refund the heavy loans which he had taken for the movie 15. And he along with Mr. Jaimil and Mr. Panna wanted to complete the remaining scenes of the movie. Mr. Saba, Mr. Jaimil and Panna Boy have conspired together to defame Ms.Naika under Section 501 and 502 of The Indian Penal Code where printing or engraving any defamatory matter and its sale amounts to defamation. In the present case even without the consent of Ms. Naika, her name was put on the poster of Hit Factory on 14 th February, despite her constant refusal to be a part and/or be associated with the movie in any way. In the present case Mr.Panna Boy the lead actor, Mr. Saba the producer and Mr. Jaimil the director of the movie Hit Factory have conspired against Ms. Naika, the lead actress of the 14 Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) SCC 54: AIR 1999 SC 1086 15 Para. 5 of the Statement of Facts
PAGE 19 movie Since the stakes were high as well as Mr. Saba had taken loans to complete the film Ms. Naika s refusal to do the film came as a rude shock. Since Ms. Naika categorically mentioned her refusal to be a part of the film it can easily be presumed that Mr. Panna Boy, Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil conspired against Ms. Naika to tarnish her image as she had already stated her refusal in her personal interview, to be a part of movies where she has to be associated with convicts. Section 120-A 16 of IPC defines criminal conspiracy and its ingredients which are as follows:- a) an illegal act. b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy 17 Prima Facie, it appears that the trio has conspired to perform illegal acts like defaming Ms. Naika by ways aforementioned. 16 Kehar Singh v. State AIR 1988 SC 1883 17 K S Narayan v. S. Gopinathan, 1982 CrLJ 1611(Mad.)
PAGE 20 2. THE TWO ACCUSED HAVE CONSPIRED TO THREATEN THE COMPLAINANT It is humbly submitted before this Hon ble Sessions Court of Bambi that in the present case between The State of Bambi vs Panna Boy and others the crime has been committed under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 18 When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a Criminal Conspiracy. Whoever is a party to such criminal conspiracy shall be punished with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or above. I.ESSENTIALS TO SECTION 385 - By this section a distinction between the inchoate and the consummated offence is recognized. The attempt to commit extortion may proceed so far as to put a person in fear of injury, or there may be an attempt to excite such fear 19. This section punishes the putting of a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion 20. 18 Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 19 Indrasana Vs. Sia Ram, 1970 CrLJ 647 20Jadunandan Singh and Anr. Vs. Emperor, AIR 1941 Pat 129
PAGE 21 II.REASONS ESTABLISHED FOR COMMITTING THE CRIME - In the present case obtaining something refers to the consent of Ms. Naika who is the lead actress of the movie Hit Factory to complete the remaining scenes of the movie or the repercussions would involve great financial losses to the producers as well as the financers of the movie. So the consent of Ms Naika was highly essential in order to prevent such huge losses. It is very well established in the given facts that the producer and the financers were in desperate need of Ms. Naika s consent for the completion of the movie Hit Factory as they had invested huge amounts of money on her and Mr. Panna Boy who is also a leading actor in the industry but now convicted under the Arms Act, 1959 for illegal possession of arms. Hence it is highly prominent that Ms. Naika receiving threat calls from unknown numbers forcing her to complete the movie and her failure to do the same would lead to dire consequences, is done by the persons involved and/or responsible for completing the movie Hit Factory. III.EVIDENCIARY PROOF FOR THE CRIME - The audio recording of the threat calls and the transcript of the same from the mobile company records are hereby annexed as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 respectively. IV.MEANING AND DEFINITION OF EXTORTION:- Extortion defined in law under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code is as under: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. In extortion the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him/her in fear of injury. The fear must be of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person in whom
PAGE 22 it operates, and takes away from his/her acts that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. In the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property at least, the offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out 21. Here in the given case the Producer Mr. Saba and the Director Mr. Jaimil of the movie Hit Factory have blatantly violated this very Section coupled with Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. They had viable reason to threaten Ms. Naika to complete the movie Hit Factory as mentioned above and nobody apart from them can be doubted for this offence in the given circumstances. Also the calls received were on her private number and it was known only to very few people and Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil were among them. So keeping in mind all the circumstances it is indisputable that the threats were made by them and that there was a reasonable cause of action for the same. Hence they can very well be accused for Extortion under Section 383 and Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil have threatened the complainant to complete the remaining scenes or she would have to face dire consequences. Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil initially tried to convince Ms Naika to complete the remaining scenes and that by using editing techniques and cooperation the movie would be completed. It was well established that Ms. Naika categorically refused to work in the movie Hit Factory as Mr.Panna Boy was a proclaimed criminal and she felt that working with him would taint her image. Thus Prima Facie it appears that the trio had reasonable cause of action to threaten the complainant for the completion of the remaining scenes. 21 Romesh Chandra Arora Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 154
PAGE 23 Thus, it is submitted that it is the Prosecution s case that the accused Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil who had a well-established motive to threaten the complainant and they are to be charged under extortion.
PAGE 24 3. THE ACCUSED MR. PANNA BOY IS GUILTY FOR VIOLATING THE CONDITIONAL REMISSION GRANTED TO HIM It is humbly submitted to the Hon ble court that the accused Mr. Panna Boy have violated the provisions of the above mentioned laws and thus is guilty under Section 227 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: Whoever, having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates any condition on which such remission was granted, shall be punished with the punishment to which he was originally sentenced, if he has already suffered no part of that punishment, and if he has already suffered any part of that punishment, then with so much of that punishment as he has not already suffered. 22 In the present case, Panna Boy had been granted conditional parole to attend to his wife who had been admitted to the hospital due to her critical health and also to take care of their lonely daughter. However, Panna Boy has taken advantage of this system of remission and has caused deceit by shooting for a movie instead of taking care of his daughter and wife. It is obvious that by the activities attributed by him, he would never have been released on Parole, and mislead the Court in order to get parole. Hence he has misused the conditions of parole and abused the law. I.CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RE-ITERATES THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED IN THE PRESENT CASE It is submitted to the Court that on 6 th February, Panna Boy had gone to the hospital to meet his wife, along with his daughter, Mr. Panna met Mr. Jaimil,, who had been admitted to the hospital for chest pain, Mrs. Mashaal and Ms. Poonam and shot a scene 22 Section 227 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
PAGE 25 for the movie Hit Factory. Later, on the same day Mr.Panna went to the Central Mall with his daughter and again met Ms.Poonam and Mr.Jaimil and another scene was shot. According to Mr.Williams, the superintendent of Star Hospital, the hospital was booked for shooting between 5 th -7 th of February. Ms. Poonam when investigated by the police officer, she said that she did not know the full details but could guess that she was used as a dupe kind of role in the place of Ms. Naika; she also accepted that she was shooting with Pannaji and also some scenes with Pannaji and Mashalji. Smt. Mashaal also when investigated by the Police Officer agreed that she had taken a few shots with her with Panna Boy and Ms. Poonam. Mr. Ganesh, the Cameraman when asked by the Investigating officer also said that there were several scenes being shot in the Hospital, then in the VIP guest drawing hall and in the bed room and later next day in Central Mall. There were some intimate scenes shot with Ms. Poonam. I.DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE It is humbly submitted that there are eyewitnesses and recordings from CCTV cameras in the hospital as well as the mall to prove these incidents. The footage of which is annexed hereby as EXHIBIT 1 and EXHIBIT 2 respectively. II. MISUSING THE CONDITIONS OF PAROLE :- Mr. Panna had not been granted parole to shoot for a movie. He was a part of a conspiracy along with Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil in order to complete the movie Hit Factory. Despite the fact that the complainant Ms.Naika had repeatedly reiterated her wish of completely dissociating herself from the movie, it had been completed by shooting some scenes with the help of Ms. Poonam and Mr. Panna, using her name as
PAGE 26 the lead actress. Thus, Mr Panna has also defamed Ms. Naika during the course of this conspiracy. Mr. Panna, during his parole, had knowingly violated the conditions on which his remission was granted : On both the occasions where he shot scenes for the movie, at the mall and at the hospital, Mr. Panna had sent his daughter away with the nanny. He knew that he would be indulging in shooting for the movie; this is the most plausible reason for him sending his daughter away during both instances. Thus, this entire incident was not co-incidental. He had requested parole to take care of his wife as well as his daughter. Instead of that, Mr. Panna knowingly indulged in the shooting of the movie. Remission is intended to be an incentive for good behavior and work. This concession is subject to subsequent withdrawal/forfeiture/revocation. The State Government reserves the right to debar/withdraw any prisoner, or category of prisoners, from the concession of remission 23. In the present case, it is clear that Mr. Panna has violated the conditions of his parole by indulging in criminal offences, namely, sections 120B and section 501 and 502 of the IPC. He has violated the very premise on which a parole is granted, that is, good behaviour by indulging in these offences. Hence, he is liable to be charged under sec.227 of the IPC. 23 Point no. 16.24 Model Prison Manual for the suprintendence and management of prisons in India.
PAGE 27 4. THE INVESTIGATION COMPLIES WITH THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW IN THE PRESENT CASE. I. THE FIR HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW: It is humbly submitted that a message sent by a telephone to the police officer and recorded by him in his station diary which discloses information regarding the cognizable offence is information within the meaning of this section which is popularly known as the FIR 24.Any failure or omission by the investigating officer cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief 25. It is humbly submitted that the FIR filed satisfies the parameters laid down under S. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). II. WITNESS STATEMENTS CORROBORATE THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION: It is submitted that the witness testimonies taken on behalf of the prosecution corroborate each other as regards the material facts of the case and further help establish the guilt of the accused in the present case. It is now well settled that minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution 26.In a case where the FIR was lodged with utmost promptitude containing all the details, video evidence of the Central Mall and Star hospital fully corroborated with the testimonies of the other witnesses, the conviction of the accused was affirmed 27.Thus, minor variations in the witness s evidence would not matter in the 24 ShyamDeogharia, (1953) 33 Pat. 122. 25 Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164; State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045; Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20; Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (Ori); State of Maharashtra v. Vilas PandurangPatil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1064 (Bom); Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ NOC 16 (Mad); Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 CrLJ 2190 (Raj). 26 State of Orissa v. Abdul Wahid, 1990 CrLJ NOC 136 (Ori). 27 Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 CrLJ 4438 (SC).
PAGE 28 appreciation of is evidence 28.The chain of circumstances established the guilt of the accused and their conviction was upheld as proper 29 28 HarbansLal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 819; Swaminathan v. State, 1993 CrLJ 2379 (Mad). 29 Ashok Kumarv.State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 265; Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 CrLJ 414 (SC).
PAGE 29 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, charges framed, witness examined and crossexamined and authorities relied upon by the Prosecution, the Prosecution humbly prays before this Hon ble Sessions Court of Bambu, Thane to adjudge and declare that: 1) The Accused should be punished under Section 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2) The Accused should be punished under Section 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3) Mr. Panna Boy should be punished under Section 227 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4) Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil should be punished under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5) To pass any such order as the Court may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience. Place: Bambi Thane Sd/ On the 21 st day of August, 2014 Advocates for Prosecution