STATE OF BAMBI 1. PANNA, 2. SABA & 3. JAIMIL

SURANA AND SURANA NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY MOOT COURT AND JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION COMPETITION 2014 BEFROE THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT BAMBI THANE, BARATA S.C. No. 123 of 2014 STATE OF BAMBI (PROSECUTION) V. 1. PANNA, 2. SABA & 3. JAIMIL (DEFENCE) UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON BLE SESSIONS JUDGE Team Number 13

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ii Index of Authorities iii List of abbreviations vi Statement of Jurisdiction vii Statement of Facts viii Statement of Charges ix Summary of Arguments x Arguments Advanced 1 Prayer 16

iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Case Laws: 1. Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002)7 SCC 334 2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini AIR 1999 SC 2640 3. Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. KS Dilip Singhji AIR 1970 SC 45 4. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kishanlal Pardhan AIR 1987 SC 773 (1987) CrLJ 709 (SC) 5. Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1980 SC 439 6. Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2002 SC 1661 (2002) 5 SCC 234 7. Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 394 AIR 2008 SC 2991 8. Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1062 9. Barendra Kumar Gosh v King Emperor AIR 1925 pc1 10. Lallan Rai v State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 11. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216 12. Devilal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1971 SC 1444, 1971 CrLJ 1132 (SC) 13. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216

iv 14. Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 160 (2000) CrLJ 380 (SC) 15. Narottamdas v. Maganbhai (1984) CrLJ 1790 (Guj) 16. Sunilakhya v. HM Jadwet AIR 1968 Cal 266, (1968) CrLJ 736 (Cal) 17. Sunilakhya v. HM Jadwet AIR 1968 Cal 266 (1968) CrLJ 736 (Cal): 18. Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 14 SCC 768, (2007) CrLJ 1440 (SC) 19. Devender Pal Singh v. State AIR2002 SC 1661 (2002) 5 SCC 234 Books: 1. Ratanalal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis, 31th edition. 2. Sarkar, Law of Evidence, Wadhwa Nagpur, 16 th edition. 3. Pillai, PSA, Criminal Law, LexisNexis, 11 th edition Journals: 1. Supreme Court Reporter 2. All India Reporter 3. Criminal Law Journal 4. Supreme Court Cases Online Database:

v 1. www.airwebworld.com 2. www.manupatra.co.in/advancedlegalsearch.aspx Web sites: 1. www.indiankanoon.org 2. www.findlaw.com Statutes: 1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Act 2 of 1973) 2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872) 3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

vi 1. AIR - All India Reporter LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2. SCR - Supreme Court Reporter 3. V. Verses 4. HC High Court 5. BOM - Bombay 6. PW Prosecution Witness 7. DW Defense Witness 8. Sec. Section 9. BPC Barata Penal Code 10. Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal 11. p. Page 12. Cal. Calcutta 13. SCC Supreme Court Cases 14. SC supreme Court

vii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Hon ble Court has the jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 177: 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Read with Section 209: 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it - When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall (a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session

viii STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Panna Boy is an actor from Bambi who was arrested under the provisions of Terrorist and disruptive act (TADA) for illegal possessions of arms, a 9 mm pistol and an AK-56 assault rifle. The case was tried in various courts and finally in March 2013, the Supreme Court of Barata held him guilty and sentenced him to 5 year rigorous imprisonment under Arms act 1959. 2. Before his conviction, Panna Boy was shooting for 3 movies one named Hit Factory Ms. Naika and him in the leading roles, directed by Mr. Jaimil and produced by Mr. Saba. Only a few intimate scenes and some scenes from a hospital were left with the lead actress. 3. After the controversy broke out Ms. Naika avoided working with panna and thus backed out from the movie. On 16 th February 2014 on hearing the rumors and seeing the ads of the movie Hit Factory she filed an Injunction suit in the High Court of Bambi and on the same day she received two anonymous phone calls on her mobile threatening her of dire consequences if she does not withdraw the suit. 4. Next day she filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Saba, Mr. Jaimil and named Hero Panna as a co-conspirator, the assistance commissioner took cognizance ordered an inquiry and the following charges were framed: a. Panna boy, under section 120B read with 34, 227, 501 and 502 of BPC. b. Mr. Saba, under Section - 120B read with 34, 385, 501 and 502 of BPC. c. Mr. Jaimil, under Section 120B read with 34, 385, 501 and 502 of BPC.

ix STATEMENT OF CHARGES a. Panna boy, under section 120B read with 34, 227, 501 and 502 of BPC. b. Mr. Saba, under Section - 120B read with 34, 385, 501 and 502 of BPC. c. Mr. Jaimil, under Section 120B read with 34, 385, 501 and 502 of BPC.

x SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS Issue I Whether the accused A1, A2, A3 are guilty of Criminal conspiracy? It is humbly submitted before this Hon ble Court that the accused Mr. Panna Boy (A1), Mr. Saba (A2) and Mr. Jaimil (A3) are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy which is read with Section 34 ( common intention ) of BPC, as there is a direct link between the evidence provided by the prosecution linking the crime to the accused to prove the same. Issue II Whether the accused A1, A2, A3 are guilty under Sec. 501 and 502 of BPC? It is humbly submitted before this Hon ble Court that the accused Mr. Panna Boy (A1), Mr. Saba (A2) and Mr. Jaimil (A3) are guilty of the offence of Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory or Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter as the accused have acted in every way to intentionally defame Ms. Naika the complainant.

xi Issue III Whether the accused Mr. Panna Boy is guilty under Sec. 227 of BPC? It is humbly submitted before this Hon ble court that the accused Mr. Panna Boy is guilty of the offence Under Section 227 of BPC which is the Violation of condition of remission of punishment, as he has committed acts which are against the provisions of remission given under the Model prison Manual for The Superintendence and Management of Prisons in India which have been adopted by the state of Bambi as its central prison manual. Issue IV Whether the accused Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil are guilty under Sec. 385 of BPC? It is humbly submitted before this Hon ble court that the accused Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil are guilty of the offence of Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion as given under section 385 of BPC. The accused Mr. Saba and Mr. Jaimil have committed the acts which put Ms. Naika in fear of injury to commit extortion.

1 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE-1 WHETHER ACCUSED A1, A2, A3 ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY? It is humbly contended before the Hon ble court that accused A1, A2, and A3 are guilty of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with section 34. Section 120A defines conspiracy: when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-1. An illegal act; or 2. An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation- it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or merely incidental to that object. In the present case, the accused shared the common object of completing the movie named Hit Factory (hereinafter referred to as the movie ). This portrays the common intention behind the criminal conspiracy. It is evident from the facts that huge advances had been paid to A1; A2 had borrowed heavily and invested a lot of money on the lead actress Ms.Naika; A3 was the Director of the movie and he also did the story and the scriptwriting. It thus can be seen that the accused had financial interests in the movie. Many overtures made by A2 to Ms.Naika for completion of the movie were declined by her since she did not wish to tarnish her image working with A1. A major financer Mr.Shaikh whose name has been linked to underworld financing offered A2 to hand over the rights of the movie and in return he would take care of his creditors. This incidence with Mr.Shaikh impelled A2 to complete the movie.

2 The prosecution contends the following pattern from the facts leading to the commission of the offence. On 14 th August A2 and A3 met Ms.Naika at her residence to demand co-operation from her to complete the movie. Even on her refusal they persisted with their demand, and on resistance, she had to call her security guard. Later in December 2013 and Feb 2014 A1 was out on parole under the pretext of his wife s ill health and yearnings of his little daughter. On seeing this A1 and A2 again approached Ms.Naika to complete the movie as per the police investigating report. A1 and his daughter visited star hospital regularly. The aforesaid hospital had five star facilities protecting the privacy of its VIP customers. On 6 th Feb. A3 got himself admitted alleging chest pains. On that day, there was a shoot going on for the movie hit factory under the pretext of shooting a TV serial in which cameras and lights were discreetly placed and security was increased not to allow any strangers. A1 visited the hospital with his daughter, after a while she was sent out with her caretaker. A1 entered a room which was readied for a shoot where Smt.Mashal and Ms.Poonam were already present for a scene. Later on 8 th Feb A1 was seen in the Central Mall with his daughter with a colorful outfit which was confirmed by the investigating officer that it had been used in his earlier scenes of movie hit factory which he had discreetly changed of which his daughter had no knowledge. He sent out his daughter in order to facilitate him to continue with the shoot with Mr. Jaimil and Ms.Poonam who followed him in the mall. A week later i.e. on 14 th Feb full page ads of the movie was released. Within 2 days on 16 th Feb. Ms.Naika filed a permanent injunction on the movie since casting along with A1 would cause an irreparable damage to her image. On the same day she received two anonymous phone calls threatening her of dire consequences if she wouldn t co-operate. Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy: In case of conspiracy to commit an offence, the mere agreement between the parties is sufficient to impose liability without the requirement of any

3 overt act. The offence of criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence and it is deemed to be complete when the unlawful combination is framed. The Supreme Court 1 summarized the broad essentials of criminal conspiracy as: 1. An object to be accomplished; 2.A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object; 3.An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons; 4.An overt act in pursuance of the agreement The accused in the present case had a common object of completion of the movie, possessed the means to accomplish the object, had an understanding between and did an overt act for accomplishment of the object. The agreement between the parties is the sine qua non for constituting the offence. This agreement or the scheme may be expressed or implied or partly express and partly implied. It involves unity of object rather than physical unity. It is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every detail about the conspiracy nor is it necessary that each one takes an active part in the commission of the act. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 2, the Supreme Court stated: When, in pursuance of the agreement any offence has been committed by any conspirator which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy he will be liable for such an offence. The SC 3 states that each conspirator plays a different part in one integrated united effort to achieve the common purpose. There may be a general plan to accomplish the 1 Mohd. Khalid V. State of West Bengal, (2002)7,SCC 334 and Devender Pal Singh v. State,AIR,2002,SC 1661,(2002) 5,SCC 234 2 State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini,AIR,1999, SC 2640 3 Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. KS Dilip Singhji,AIR, 1970, SC 45

4 common design by such means as found expedient. Every co-conspirator is liable for the acts of the conspirator even if some have not actively participated 4. Proof of conspiracy: In case of criminal conspiracy the evidence available is mainly circumstantial; this is evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other facts. In common parlance the meaning of the term conspiracy means a secret plan. It can thus be adduced that direct evidence of the conspiracy is rarely available. It was stated 5 that the offence can only be proved largely from inferences drawn from acts committed by conspirators in pursuance of a common design. Similarly, the SC 6 observed that, privacy and secrecy are the characteristics of conspiracy than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the formation of criminal conspiracy. In a case Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra 7 it was stated that since direct evidence is generally difficult to adduce in cases involving conspiracy charge the prosecution will rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention and also generally tend to depend on circumstantial evidence. In another case 8 it was stated that it is not necessary to prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do an illegal act, the agreement can be proved by necessary implication. 4 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kishanlal Pardhan, AIR 1987,SC 773 (1987), CrLJ 709 (SC) 5 Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 1980,SC 439 6 Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),AIR 2002 SC, 1661 (2002) 5,SCC 234 7 Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra,(2008) 10,SCC 394, AIR 2008,SC 2991 8 Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 1981, SC 1062

5 Joint liability-a criminal may not commit the crime himself but may share a common intention with others who actually commit the crime. Actus contra actum i.e. promise against promise with criminal object by two or more people will constitute joint liability. It is difficult to find the exact contribution in the commission of offence but each of them who join the act with common intension is liable in the same way as if it was done by him alone. Section.34 states Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone According to the aforementioned definition there are two main ingredients a) criminal act by several people b) participation of all people. In a very famous case 9 Lord Sumner held that section 34 deals with doing of separate act by several persons if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all. The essence thus is simultaneous consensus of mind to bring about a particular result 10. The common design portrayed by the accused fulfills the condition precedent for convicting them for conviction of crime. The conduct of the parties will be an evidence to prove common intention 11. The SC stated 12, the common intention must be shown to be premeditated i.e. it must be shown that there was consensus between minds which activated the common intention leading to commission of criminal act. However, there may be incidents in which common intention may develop on the 9 Barendra Kumar Gosh v King Emperor,AIR 1925, pc1 10 Lallan Rai v State of Bihar,(2003) 1,SCC 268 11 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad,AIR 1955, SC 216 12 Devilal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971, SC 1444, 1971,CrLJ 1132 (SC)

6 spot after the offenders have gathered. In the present case, the acts done by the accused exhibit premeditated plan of completing the movie hatched in secrecy by the accused in order to defame Ms.Naika and the plan of putting her in fear of extortion could have been developed on the spot. Conduct of the parties shall be considered as evidence to prove common intention. In a case 13, the SC states, it is true that prior concert and arrangement can, and indeed often must, be determined from subsequent conduct as, for example by a systematic plan of campaign unfolding itself during the course of action which could only be referable to prior concert and prearrangement. In the present case, the accused had a prearranged systematic plan which unfolded itself with the averments and the corroborating pattern that emerged leading to the commission of crime. Common intention is a state of mind and can only be gathered by inference drawn from facts and circumstances established in the case. In a case 14 the SC held that no direct evidence for common intention is necessary, it can be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the case and conduct of parties In the present case, from the averments provide from circumstantial evidence, the aforementioned pattern, CCTV footage, statement of Ms.Naika and police investigation report form the basis of the conspiracy of which the accused are guilty and are liable under Section 120B. The offence of criminal conspiracy with common intention has been committed by the accused 13 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955, SC 216 14 Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000, SC 160 (2000), CrLJ 380 (SC)

7 ISSUE II WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION? It is humbly submitted to the Hon ble Court that the accused are liable under Section 501 & 502 of BPC. Relevant Sections:- Section 501: 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. Section 502: 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 extent to two years or with fine or with both. Section 499: Defamation- whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, to defame that person. Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or office calling or lowers the

8 credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state or in a state generally considered disgraceful. The condition of being known or recognized by many people is known as reputation. It is as near and dear to a man as his life. Reputation means the opinion of others about the said person. It is what neighbors and others say what he is. In other words it is the composite hearsay and which is the opinion of the community against a person. The good opinion one bears or the esteem in which one is held in the society is one s reputation 15. Law rightly protects the external esteem of the person in the society which is protected under explanation 4 to Section 499. For better understanding the offence of defamation committed under section 501 and 502 it is very essential to understand the character portrayed of A1 and Ms.Naika. The accused A1 was arrested under the provisions of TADA in 1993 for illegal possession of arms. For a lay man that laid a permanent stigma on the name A1 as a terrorist. Later, he was convicted under Arms Act, 1959. His character building days of adolescence were tumultuous, and his drug abuse had lead him to 6 months imprisonment. The stigma of being branded a terrorist to large masses of people and his link with communal riots persisted. From the facts it is clear that A1, would for own good wouldn t think twice before killing 3 chickens while speeding away in the jeep. This shows the lack of moral values of A1. Due to his political connections and family background he got parole on regular intervals and continuous succession which was misused by him. Many prominent people believed him to be guilty. Ms.Naika is a prominent actress and Model for Top Production Companies. She was casted as lead actress in the movie, Hit factory. She belonged to a family of freedom fighters and her father was a Major in Armed Forces. She was also a 15 Narottamdas v. Maganbhai, (1984) CrLJ, 1790 (Guj)

9 celebrity representative of Barata in CTITF (Counter Terrorism Implementation Task Force) and has an impeccable name in the industry. Even though she had her reservations about acting with accused A1 and working under the direction of A3 she accepted the offer for the movie since she owed A3 for giving her the chance in this field in earlier days. Ingredients of Defamation 16 are stated as follows: 1. The making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person; 2. The means of such imputation are words, writing, signs or visible representation; 3. Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming the reputation of the person about whom the imputation is published. Analysis:- 1. The making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person: Imputation represents something, especially something that is undesirable which has been done or possessed by someone. For an act to constitute defamation as an offence publication forms the key ingredient as by publication, others get to hear or come to know about the allegedly defamatory imputations. Defamation is the publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of other members of society generally. In the present case it is evident from the facts that Ms.Naika had completely disassociated from the movie,had returned the advance taken to A2, and had made it clearly known to A2 & A3 that 16 Sunilakhya v. HM Jadwet, AIR 1968, Cal 266, (1968), CrLJ 736 (Cal)

10 she did not wish to tarnish her image by associating herself with A1 who had a dubious character. After all the attempts by A2 & A3 proved futile they intentionally along with A1 hatched an plan to defame Ms.Naika and completed the movie secretly with the help of Ms.Poonam who was a look alike of Ms.Naika. On 14 th Feb the accused published the ads of releasing shortly the movie Hit Factory in popular newspapers and magazines with Ms.Naika in lead role casting alongside A1 in order to defame her. 2. The means of such imputation are words, writing, signs or visible representations: There are basically four types of defamation. They include: 1. by words Spoken, 2. Written, 3. Signs and 4. Visible Representation. The 4 th type of defamation i.e. visible representation includes all possible forms of defamation which human ingenuity can devise. In the present case, the releasing of the posters of the movie Hit Factory (hereinafter referred as the movie) with Ms.Naika in the lead role falls under the 4th type of defamation. This only adds to the graveness of the offence. 3. Imputation made with intention of harming the Reputation: In the section 499 it has very rightly been pointed out that any person who defames another will be defamation only if he possesses the intention to harm or knowing/having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation. It is known 17, that intention to cause harm to the person is the sine qua non for the offence of defamation. The essence of the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of the person. 17 Sunilakhya v. HM Jadwet AIR 1968 Cal 266 (1968) CrLJ 736 (Cal):

11 ISSUE III WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 227 OF BPC? It is humbly submitted to this Hon ble court that the accused A1 is liable under the section 227 of BPC. The section 227 states: Violation of condition of remission of punishment: - Whoever, having accepted any conditional remission of punishment, knowingly violates any conditions 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 suffered any part of that punishment, then with so much of that punishment as he has not already suffered. Remission is known as shortening of the convict s prison sentence on account of his good behavior. This is given as per discretion and is conditional. If any of such conditions is violated it shall amount to an offence. In that case the punishment for such on offence shall be the punishment to which he was originally sentenced. In other words it can be said that, in such a case, remission given is withdrawn. Remission is intended to be an incentive for good behavior and work. It should be granted on the basis of an inmate s behavior, work and general response to various institutional activities. In the present case, the accused A1 has been released on parole 2 times and furlough 3 times as per the facts. His continuous remission in the form of parole was criticized by many prominent people that he was extended such favors only because of his family background and political connections of his father in the ruling party.

12 As aforementioned, the accused A1 had been out on parole in December and February in continuous succession under the pretext of his allegedly ill wife and for nurturing his daughter. While he was out on parole he along with A2 and A3 hatched a plan in secrecy of criminal conspiracy and secretly was shooting for the movie which was defaming to Ms.Naika and also conspired with A2 and A3 for committing an offence of Criminal Conspiracy. Thus the shooting undertaken by A1 shall be considered as an offence in this case. The following facts portray that the shooting took place in hospital and mall: The accused A1 while being out on parole used to visit Star Hospital which provided 5 Star facilities to its customers, thus protecting their privacy. The hospital did not allow any strangers or any media personnel to enter the premises of the hospital so that the shoot could go on discreetly. This facilitated A1 and other accused to discreetly shoot for the movie in order to complete the few scenes, some of which were to be shot in a big hospital. On 3 rd February A1 again got parole and not long afterwards on 6 th February 2014 A3 got himself admitted in the hospital under the pretext of chest pain in order to complete the remaining scenes. Between 6 th and 8 th February A1 was seen entering a room readied for shoot with his cast of the movie i.e. Smt.Mashal and Ms.Poonam. There is no CCTV footage of his shooting because the CCTV cameras were attached only in the public areas and not in areas like private rooms, VIP guest rooms, Drawing Hall and Bed Room where the shooting took place. But the footage shows Ms.Poonam and Smt.Mashal shooting for some scenes. In Ms.Poonam s statement she had admitted that a few scenes were shot between her and A1. According to the statement of A2 he was shooting for a TV serial in the premises of the hospital. Under the pretext of a TV serial shoot he was secretly shooting for the movie. Ms.Naika had already informed A2 and A3 that

13 she did not wish to associate herself with A1 and had already returned the advance taken; still they continued the shoot by using her body double Ms.Poonam. On the 8 th February A1 was seen in the hospital wearing a colorful outfit which is evident from CCTV footage, while on the gates of the hospital he was seen wearing a white kurta and pajama by Ms.Khusboo. On the same day i.e. 8 th February, he was seen in the Central Mall wearing a colorful outfit. Even his daughter had no idea as to when he had changed his outfit that shows the discreet way in which he changed his outfits. The change of outfit was mainly for the continuance of the scene that was previously shot for the movie. At the same time Ms.Poonam and A3 also entered the mall where the lights were on for the shoot. On 14 th February the posters were released of Releasing Shortly of the movie. A few months ago since 14 th August 2013 a few scenes of the movie were remaining to be shot and on 14 th February 2014 the release of the movie ads itself shows that a secret shoot went on by the accused. According to Sec.17.18 of Prison Manual the Head of Prison Department/Inspector General of Prisons may make an order for the release of a prisoner on leave or special leave subject to many conditions. One of the condition states, that the prisoner will keep good behavior and will not commit any offence during leave. As stated above A1 was shooting for the movie while out on parole and is a co-conspirator against Ms.Naika. Thus it shows the violation of condition of remission of punishment.

14 ISSUE IV WHETHER ACCUSED A2 & A3 ARE LIABLE UNDER SEC.385 Of BPC? It is contended before the Hon ble Court that accused A2 & A3 are liable under Section 385. Section 385: Putting a 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. Section 383 defines Extortion which is as follows - 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 property or valuable security, or anything signed, or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. The SC 18 states ingredients of Extortion:1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury; 2. The purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the person put in fear, and 3. To deliver property or valuable security. In the present case, Ms.Naika was a leading actress and a model for top production companies. She was approached by A2 and A3 to cast her into the movie alongside A1. Later when she refused to work with A1 due to his tarnished image, A2 and A3 kept on compelling her. Her acting talents as an actress shall be considered as an intellectual property that she possessed. On her repeated refusal to act, and after she filed an injunction for the movie 18 Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2007) 14, SCC 768, (2007), CrLJ 1440 (SC)

15 they called and threatened her of dire consequences to put her in fear of injury if she did not cooperate in order to complete the movie. The fear of injury contemplated under this section need not necessarily be bodily harm or hurt. It will include injuries to mind, reputation or property of the person 19. Ms.Naika who had received the threatening phone call was put in fear of bodily harm also was harassed mentally and her reputation could be at stake. On 14 th August 2013 and 5 th February 2014, the accused A2 and A3 went to Ms.Naika s house to request her to complete the movie. But when she denied their request, they started harassing her by making various overtures day and night which led to her mental harassment. When they came at her residence she had asked them to leave the premises and not to meet her again, but they kept showing resistance until she had to call her security guard to show them the door. Ms.Naika belonged to a well cultured family background. Being a lady she would not have to call for the security guards unless she would have sensed some sort of threat from A2 and A3. As contented in Issue I it could be seen that A2 and A3 were desperately trying to complete the movie. On 14 th February they released the ads of the movie. On 16 th February Ms.Naika expeditiously filed an injunction. This was a huge blow to the already distressed A2 and A3 as it would cost them financially. In order to save face and to retort back to Ms.Naika they both made threatening phone calls from public booths and demanded co-operation. From the statement of Ms.Naika it was said to her that since A1 was under imprisonment the shoot of the movie would be arranged discreetly. In the second phone call the use of the word discreet was also prominent, showing that the same people might have called her. 19 Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4, SCC 257, 2007 CrLJ 3529

16 PRAYER Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon ble Court be pleased to: Find the accused guilty of all the charges framed by the prosecution and punish them accordingly. AND /OR Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, equity and Good conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted. Place: Bambi S/d Counsel for the Prosecution