IN THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT AND
SESSION COURT, MOHALI
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE ……………PROSECUTION
VERSUS
VIKRAMJIT & HIS MOTHER …………….DEFENDANT
Most humbly submits before the hon’ble judge
The counsel appears on behalf of prosecution
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
MS. GURPREET KAUR RISHU GUPTA
ROLL NO. 993
B.A.L.L.B. 10TH SEMESTER
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 1
INDEX
LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
TABLE OF STATUTE
WEBSITES
BOOKS
TABLE OF CASES 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENTS OF FACTS 8
ISSUES 9
ARGUMENTS 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11
PRAYER 16
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. H.C High Court
2. S.C. Supreme Court
3. A.I.R All India Reports
4. P&H Punjab and Haryana
5. Hon’ble Honorable
6. vs. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8. SCC Supreme Court Cases
9. Vol. Volume
10. Sec. Section
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF STATUTES
1) Indian Penal Code, 1860
2) India Evidence Act, 1872
3) Criminal Procedure Code
WEBSITES
1) www.indiankanoon.org
BOOKS
1) S.N. MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE
2) Dr. AVTAR SINGH, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 4
TABLE OF CASES
1) Kuldip Singh and Anr. vs State of Punjab A.I.R. 5 February, 2004
2) Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 16 December, 2014
3) Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 2008
4) Appasaheb and Anr vs State of Maharashtra
5) Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand Anr on 19 May, 2003
6) Bhanuben & others vs State of Gujarat A.I.R. 14 September, 2015
7) State of Punjab vs Daljit Singh & others on 11th February, 1999
8) B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 2003
9) Prakash Kaur vs Harjinder Pal Singh A.I.R. 1999
10) Balwant Singh & others vs State of Himachal Pradesh A.I.R. 2008
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Magistrate and it appears to the magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the court
The Hon’ble Court has 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 a case to court of session when offences triable exclusively by
it-
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before of session, he shall –
(a) Commit the case to the court of session;
(b) Subject to the provisions of this court relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during
and until the conclusion of, the trail;
(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
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
That Renuka Mahajan aged 22 years from college of Architecture, Jammu was the topper
in the college and worked with acclaimed architects of the country.
That she became close to friend and senior Vikramjit Singh who was also a good student.
That both of them were seen together a lot inside and outside the college.
That their common friends were surprised as Vikramjit was from a luxuries lifestyle
while Renuka was a somber girl from a middle class background.
That they decided to get married after Renuka completed her course.
That on 9th November 2008,they got married and Renuka moved into matrimonial home
at Mohali where Vikramjit’s parents, sister and grandmother were staying therein.
That as she started her career, she become close to her sisiter-in-law but some issues
with her in-laws which settled amicably.
That the practice of Vikramjit did not go as expected and moreover he wanted to
maintain a high standard of living which led to financial crises.
That a baby was born on 11th December 2010.
That on the pretext of poor practice, Vikramjit began to borrow money from friends and
relatives
That he took a loan of 5 lakhs from Renuka’s parents but refused to return later saying
treat as if the money was given for their daughter only.
That this led to deterioration of married relation and at times he use to beat her, when
drunk.
That Vikramjit use to blame Renuka that she belongs from a family of beggars.
That the consequence of which was she once tried to slit her wrists and ends her life but
was saved by her sister-in-law.
That this incident left a deep impression on the family and the family physician
prescribed medicines and advised her to consult a psychiatrist.
That later on 13th April 2012, a baby boy was born.
That even then family was in a financial mess.
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 7
That money lender used to threaten Vikramjit, and he vented his frustration on Renuka.
That she started suffering from depression and mood swings.
That on 4th January, 2014, neighbors saw Renuka running out with her saree on fire and
her mother-in-law chasing her shouting she was out of her mind to do something like this.
That she finally collapsed on the road and was taken to hospital.
That it was reported that she had 88% burns on her body and was declared to be unfit for
statement recording.
That on 6th January 2014, on brief improvement in her condition, the police was called
and her dying declaration was recorded by Mohan Lal, sub-inspector at 11:00a.m.
That she accused her mother-in-law and husband of setting her on fire and at 12:30 she
died.
That on 6th January, 2014 the body was sent for post-mortem and the house was searched
and subsequently a suicide note was found dated 9th November, 2013.
That the mother-in –law and husband were arrested and sent to judicial custody.
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 8
ISSUE
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER
DOWRY DEATH UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER THE
SECTION 498 A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 9
ARGUMENT
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER
DOWRY DEATH UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
That it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is liable under the dowry
death as defined under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code as the facts have been
presented to satisfy the requirements of Section 304-B and mere presumptions can be
taken under Section 113-B of evidence which may lead to giving punishment to someone
who is the wrongdoer.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER THE
SECTION 498 A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
That it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is liable under the Section
498-A of Indian Penal Code as the facts presented have stated that the husband or relative
of husband of women subjected her to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A.
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER DOWRY
DEATH UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is guilty under the charges of Indian
Penal Code under Section 304-B.
Dowry death as defined under section 304-B of IPC –
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be
called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC:
a) when the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury; or
b) occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances;
c) and the aforesaid two facts spring within seven years of girl's marriage;
d) and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
his relative;
Presumptions as to dowry death Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act:
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation
In present case the prosecution was beaten by respondent
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 11
Respondent used to blame deceased that she belonged from a family of beggars which had
bad affect her. As a result, she suffered from depression and mood swings due to this mental
harassment.
Also during subsequent search, a suicide note was found written by deceased on 9th Nov
2013. It clearly mentioned that deceased was harassed by her husband due to which she tried
to attempt suicide
In Kuldip Singh and Anr. vs State of Punjab [1] A.I.R. 5 February, 2004
The learned trial Judge commenced the consideration of the facts of the case by
recounting the provisions of Section 304-B, I.P.C., Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge concluded that the deceased
had died of aluminium phosphide poisoning within three years of her marriage and,
therefore, two ingredients of Section 304-B stood fully established.
The learned Judge was convinced of the truthfulness of the testimony of the single
witness and conviction under Section 304-B was recorded.
[
In the present case
The prosecution died between the 7 years of the marriage with abnormal circumstances.
The prosecution was maltreated and harassed by her husband and his parents
In Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana [2] A.I.R. 16 December, 2014
Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act it is clear that once
death of a woman is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and if it is shown that soon
before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
1) Kuldip Singh and Anr. vs State of Punjab A.I.R. 5 February, 2004
2) Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 16 December, 2014
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 12
relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry, such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death and the court shall presume it. In other words,
in the cases of dowry death, as defined in Section 304B IPC, after evidence adduced by
the prosecution and conditions mentioned in Section 113B Indian Evidence Act, are
fulfilled, court has to take a presumption, and burden shifts on the accused to rebut the
presumption.
In Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana [3] A.I.R. 2008
In that case the appellant therein was married to the deceased on 22/02/1996. The case of
the prosecution was that ever since the marriage, the deceased was subjected to physical
and mental torture by the appellant and others for not getting sufficient dowry. The trial
court convicted all the accused under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The High
Court acquitted the relatives of the appellant-husband, but, confirmed his conviction.
In present case the deceased was harassed by her husband and mother in law which
resulted in her death as evident from statement of deceased.
In Appasaheb and Anr vs State of Maharashtra [4]
In that case the accused was convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC.
The incident had taken place on 15/09/1991. The deceased was married to the accused
about 2 1/2 years prior to the date of the incident. The deceased consumed poison and
died in the house of the accused. The allegations were that there was a demand for money
and consequent beating of the deceased. The evidence disclosed that the demand was
made for defraying expenses of manure etc. This Court held that a demand for money on
account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or
for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is
normally understood. This Court held that being a penal provision Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will have to be construed strictly.
3) Surinder Singh vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 2008
4) Appasaheb and Anr vs State of Maharashtra
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 13
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE PUT LIABLE UNDER THE
SECTION 498 A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OR NOT?
It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the accused is guilty under the charges of IPC
Section 498-A
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty under section 498-A -
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be pun-ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means -
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
In present case deceased was maltreated and harassed badly in her in laws house.
Therefore, she once tried to slit her wrists and commit suicide but was stopped by her
sister-in-law.
Her mother-in-law was still being cruel even when deceased was burning in front of her.
In case Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand Anr[5] on 19 May, 2003
Misappropriation of dowry articles and istridhan was framed against her husband only
and her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law (wife of one of the brothers of her
5) Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand Anr on 19 May, 2003
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 14
husband) and her unmarried sister-in-law were discharged and charge for the offence
under Section 498A IPC i.e. harassment of the wife by the husband and his relatives for
inadequate dowry or non-fulfillment of demands of dowry was framed against the
husband and father-in-law alone.
In case Bhanuben & others vs State of Gujarat [6] A.I.R. 14 September, 2015
The accused and his family members caused mental and physical cruelty and therefore,
the deceased was put in a critical condition and consumed poison and ended her life. It
further held that on perusal of the findings recorded by the trial court it was impossible
that the deceased could have consumed poison by mistake and therefore, the learned trial
court has rightly convicted the accused as they are guilty of the above mentioned
offences.
In present case deceased was maltreated and harassed badly in her in laws house.
Therefore, she once tried to slit her wrists and commit suicide but was stopped by her
sister-in-law.
In State of Punjab vs Daljit Singh & others [7] on 11th February, 1999
It is, thus, proved that on account of demand of Rupees 50,000/- made by the appellants,
which was not fulfilled, Lakhbir Kaur, was harassed, thus, compelling her to end her life.
The appellants, in our view, have been rightly held guilty under section 498-A, IPC
In B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana [8] A.I.R. 2003
In this case that the object of Section 498-A of IPC was to prevent torture to a woman by
her husband or his relatives with demand of dowry. This section was added with a view
to punishing a husband and his relatives who harassed or tortured the wife or her relatives
to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Bhanuben & others vs State of Gujarat A.I.R. 14 September, 2015
7) State of Punjab vs Daljit Singh & others on 11th February, 1999
8) B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana A.I.R. 2003
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 15
In Prakash Kaur vs Harjinder Pal Singh [9] A.I.R. 1999
Her parents gave dowry as per their status. The husband-non-petitioner treated her
properly for three months but thereafter, at the instance of other relatives, he started
harassing her and used to make demand for the dowry continuously. According to the
petitioner, since her father had expired, it was not possible for her to satisfy the demand
of dowry. The non-petitioner, therefore, started treating her with cruelty and also used to
beat her and indulged in filthy language.
In Balwant Singh & others vs State of Himachal Pradesh [10] A.I.R. 2008
A person charged and acquitted under Section 304B can be convicted under Section
498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is
established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.
1) Prakash Kaur vs Harjinder Pal Singh A.I.R. 1999
2) Balwant Singh & others vs State of Himachal Pradesh A.I.R. 2008
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 16
PRAYER
In light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities cited , it is hereinafter
humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and
declare that :
That the accused is guilty for offence under dowry.
That the accused should be framed for charges under Sections of IPC.
AND/ OR
Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
For this act of kindness, the State and Petitioner as duty bound as ever shall humbly pray.
Respectfully Submitted
(Counsel for the petitioner)
Memorial on behalf of prosecution Page 17
