POST GRADUATE COLLEGE OF LAW, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
CRL.No. XXXXX OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
DEEPAK AND ORS. … PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS
THIS PETETION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTUION,
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Article 134 in Constitution of India
134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
(1)An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the
High Court-
(a)has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced
him to death; or
(b)has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to
death; or
(c)certifies under article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court: Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such
provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to
such conditions as the High Court may establish or require.
(2)Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to
entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and
limitations as may be specified in such law.
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of this Hon’ble Court the facts of the present
case are summarised as follows:
After a relationship of 5 years. Deepak (i.e. the appellant husband) and Vidya (i.e. the
deceased wife) got married on 15.09.2011. They were living in their newly rented home
in Mukherjee Nagar, where Vidya used to give tuitions to law students, in order to
financially help Deepak. On 15.07.2013. Vidya was admitted in the government hospital
at 2:00 p.m. with 44% burns. Her statement was recorded by the Head Constable of
police, wherein she stated that she accidentally got the burns at 8:00 p.m. on 14.07.2013
due to a burning candle when she went to check the circuit box and because of the rain
and wind, nobody got to know about the incident. She also stated that her friend Priya
brought her to the hospital. On the basis of this, an FIR was registered. On the same day
(i.e. 15.07.2013), a statement was also recorded by the Executive Magistrate, after
getting the fitness certificate from the doctor. This was similar to her first statement,
with the additional detail of her husband being in office at that time. On 23.07.2013. a
dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Vidya 's
parents and brother, wherein she gave a completely new account of the incident. She
stated that as a result of quarrel, her husband set her on fire. When he was dousing off
the fire, a neighbour Srinu came and helped. He asked Srinu not to reveal anything.
After her in-laws came, she was taken to a private hospital on 15.07.2013 and then to
the government hospital on 16.07.2013. On 14.08.2013, Vidya passed away in the
hospital as a result of septicaemia shock due to ante-mortem burns (revealed by post-
mortem). The police altered the FIR into offences under Sections 302, 498A IPC and
filed a charge sheet against Deepak, his father, his mother and his foster sister on
03.12.2013. The trial court acquitted all the accused in its decision on 08.05.2014. as
the prosecution could not prove any case against either. of them beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence, the State preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court, wherein the
appellant mother, father and sister were convicted under Section 498A IPC and Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1956 and the appellant husband was convicted under
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 3
Section 302, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1956 on 17.10.2014.
The decision of the High Court (HC) was based upon the evidences produced, i.e. the
letter written by Vidya to her mother Laxmi on 17.12.2012 (wherein she talked about
the taunts of Deepak 's parents, dowry demand by the foster sister, lack of support by
Deepak, life in the new rented home and the suspicion of extra-marital affair of Deepak),
the deposition of the neighbour Srinu who corroborated the presence of Deepak during
the incident, deposition of Vidya 's mother that the relation between Vidya and Deepak
were strained, and Vidya's dying declaration. Aggrieved by the order of the HC,
appellants Deepak and his family have now petitioned before this Hon'ble Court. The
matter is admitted and listed for hearing.
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 4
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
Whether the accused can be convicted on the basis of dying declaration?
ISSUE II
Whether the appellants can be held liable for cruelty and dowry demand?
ISSUE III
Whether the circumstantial evidences prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the accused can be convicted on the basis of dying declaration?
In case of plural dying declarations, the court is expected to see whether all the plural
declarations differ in material particulars. If the declaration materially differs from the
other, the same will not be relied upon unless the corroborative evidence is adduced.
In case of multiple statements made by the victim are contradicting to each other than
the court shall properly weigh and shall arrive at a conclusion.
In Irfan @ naka Vs state of U.P 2023 the Hon’ble supreme court has stated that the
petitioner has given two dying declaration where the two are contradicting to each other
and court has stated that basing on declaration one cannot be convicted that too when
one makes contradictory statements and the court should verify and crosscheck the facts
and then only the accused can be convicted on the basis of the court investigation.
In Ram Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 420),” Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: It is settled law that it is not safe to convict an accused person merely
on the evidence of a dying declaration without further corroboration because such a
statement is not made on oath and is not subject to cross-examination and because the
maker of it might be mentally or physically in a state of compassion and might be
drawing upon his imagination while he was making the declaration. Thus, the
Supreme Court has laid a stress, as a safeguard, on corroboration of the dying
declaration before it is acted upon.
“In Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958 SCR 552),” Hon'ble Apex Court held
this observation to be in the nature of obiter dicta and observed that, "It cannot be laid
down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of
the conviction unless it is corroborated."
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 6
2. Whether the appellants can be held liable for cruelty and dowry demand?
No, the appellants can’t be held liable for cruelty and dowry demand only on the basis
of the letter written by Mrs. Vidya cannot be considered as an evidence. Because there
is action taken by the parents of the deceased as the letter was written a long time and
also there is no proof that she is being subjected to cruelty and dowry demand.
In the case of Satkar Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in (2004) 11 SCC
291 wherein it is, inter alia, held: -
It is based on these erroneous inference drawn on unproved facts and placing reliance
on statements of interested witnesses whose evidence has not stood the test of cross-
examination, the trial court came to a wrong conclusion as to the guilt of the accused
persons. It is to be noted that 3 letters, Exts. P-28, DA and DB which though not very
proximate in time clearly show that there was no demand as has been alleged by the
prosecution by the accused and the contents of the said letter clearly show that the
allegation made after the death of Devinder Kaur of dowry demand or harassment
leading to cruelty is unsubstantiated. For all these reasons we are of the opinion that the
trial Court committee serious error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had
established its case against the appellants.”
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 7
3. Whether the Circumstantial Evidences prove the guilt Beyond reasonable
doubt?
No, because in the above there is no chain of actions which are interlinked to each
other which are mentioned in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. state of Rajasthan
[criminal appeal No.954 of 2005] :
The principles can be set out as under:
(i) the circumstances from which an interference of guilt I sought to be proved
must conjointly or firmly established.
(ii) the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused.
(iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so to complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that with an all human probability, the
crime was committed by the accused or none else.
(iv) the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable
hypothesis, same that of the guilt of the accused.
So basing upon the above principles there is no chain of conclusive proof where
Vidya has given a couple of statements which are contradicting with each other
sometimes she says that her husband is at office and she got caught fire by mistake
by candle and her friend priya had admitted Vidya in hospital but in another
statement she said that her husband lit fire on her and neighbour srinu has to
rescue and later her in-laws took her to hospital. Why srinu didn’t took her to
hospital? A circumstantial evidence should never lead to benefit of doubt.
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 8
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments and authorities cited,
the Counsels on behalf of the Defendant humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court that it
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
It tis humbly submitted that the, petitioners begs for quashing the entire proceedings
initiated against my client, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass such order or
orders which may safeguard the fundamental rights of life, liberty and dignity so forth
Or pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and
good conscience and for this Act of kindness of Your Lordships the Defendant shall as
duty bound ever pray.
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE - RESPONDENT
Page | 9
