IFTM UNIVERSITY MORADABAD

SCHOOL OF LAW

10th SEMESTER PRACTICAL FILE

BAL 1014- MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP

SUBMITTED BY: Yash Gulati SUBMITTED TO:

BA.LLB SEMESTER: 10TH

ROLL NO- 20271062

 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that YASH GULATI student of B.A. LL.B. ,10TH

SEMESTER has successfully completed his practical file of Moot Court
under the guidance of Mr.VINEET. It further certifies that following
moot propositions memorial are prepared by him under my supervision.

Mr. VINEET
(Assistant Professor)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who

supported me throughout the course of this practical file. I am thankful
for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and
friendly advice in respect of this practical file. I am sincerely grateful to
them for sharing their truthful and f illuminating views related to the
file.
I am also very thankful to Mr. VINEET (Asst. Professor IFTM
UNIVERSITY ) for his guidance and cooperation and my family and
friends too. Without their support it would not be possible for me to
complete it on time.Their guidance and supervision were very helpful in
bringing this work the conclusion.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. CRIMINAL CASE

STATE.....................................................................................................PROSECTION

V.

SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS.........................................................ACCUSED

 BEFORE
THE HONORABLE SESSION COURT, PANIPAT

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE........................................................PROSECUTION

Vs.

SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS...................ACCUSED

Written Submission on behalf of the

PROSECUTION
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................6
ACTS AND STATUTES.........................................................................6
BOOKS REFERRED..............................................................................6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................9
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...............................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................14
1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE
LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC? 14

2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE THE COMMON

INTENTION?...................................................................................22
3) WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF
PUNISHMENT OR NOT?
...............................................................................................................25
PRAYER.............................................................................................26
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& : And

AIR : All India Reporter

Anr. : Another

Art. : Article

AP : Andhra Pardesh

CA : Criminal Appeal

Cr.LJ : Criminal Law Journal

Cr.PC : Code of Criminal Pr

DD : Dying Declaration

FIR : First Information Report

HC : High Court

Hon’ble : Honorable

IPC : Indian Penal Code

IEA : Indian Evidence act

MLR : Medical Report

Ors : Others

P&h : Punjab and Haryana High Court

PW : Prosecution Witness
PMR : Post Mortem Report

SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court cases

SCR : Supreme Court Record

SLP : Special Leave Petition

UOI : Union of India

v. : Versus

WB : West Bengal
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 ACTS AND STATUTES:

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
THE INDIA PENAL CODE, 1860
THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

 BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, (21st Ed., Central Law Agency,2016 )

2. Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy, The Essentials of Forensic Medicine & toxicology(33rd
Ed., J.P. Pubications, 2010)
3. Justice UL Bhatt, Lectures on Indian Evidence Act, (Universal Law Publication,2015)
4. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis,2009)
5. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016 )
6. N.K. Acharya, Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, (6th Ed. Asia
Law House, 2013)
7. Prof. Arthur Best, Wigmore on Evidence, (Aspen Publishers; 13-Volume Ed.
December 31, 1995)
8. P.K. Majumdar and R.P. Kataria, Law Relating to Dowry Prohibition Cruelty
and Harassment (3rd Ed. Orient Publication, 2015)
9. Ramjeth Malani & DS Chopra, The Indian Penal Code (Vol. II, Thomson Reuters)
10. Ram Shelkar, Law Relating To Dowry Death (1st Ed., Kamal Publishers, 2010)
11. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
12. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, Law of Evidence (25th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2013)
13. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
14. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
15. SC Sarker, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (3rd Ed., Dwivedi Law Agency, 2014)
16. SC Sarker, The Code of Criminal Procedure: An Encyclopaedic Commentary on
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(11th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
  LIST OF CASES:-

1. Mannu Raja v. State of MP AIR 1976 SC 2199

2. State of Up v. Ram Sagar Yadav AIR 1976 SC 2199

3. Kundula Bala subrahmanayam v. State of AP 1990 Crl.J 1666(AP)

4. Meesla Ram Krishna v State of AP (1994) 4 SCC 684

5. Charipalli Shankar Rao v PP, HC of AP 2001 CrLJ NOC

158(Del)

6. Najma Faraghi V. State of West Bengal AIR 1998 SC 682

7. Gopali Devi v. State(Govt of NCT Delhi) AIR 1985 SC 416

8. Panchdo singh v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC526

9. L.K Naiak v State 2013 CrLJ 1792 (CHH)

10. Desh Deepak Kapoor v. State ( Delhi Adminstration) (2006)92DRJ 440(DB)

11. Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73

12. A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar (2005) 2 SCC 22

13. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta 2002

14. P. Bikshapati v. State of A.P 1989 Cri. L.j.

1186 (A.P)
15. Malathi Ravi v. B.V.Ravi ` (2014) 7 SCC 395

16. Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal AIR 2012 SC 3539

17. Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura AIR 2011 SC 3753

18. Ramashish Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 (8) SC555

19. State of Punjab v. Fauja Singh 1997

20. Bhola Turha v/s State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1515

21. Raj Kumar Khanna v. State of (nct delhi) & ors (61drj 2002365 DB
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Session Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 1771, Section 262
read with Section 2093 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1
Section 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 commited’.
2
Section 26:‘ Courts by which offences are triable-

Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-

a) Any offence under the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860) may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or
(ii) The Court of Session, or
(iii) Any other Court by which such offence in shown in the first Schedule to be triable;
b) Any offence under any law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be triedby
such Court and when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or
(ii) Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be tried’.
3
Section 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 the case to the Court of session;

b) Subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, anduntil
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
beproduced in evidence;
d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.’
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Arundhati Kumar was a 22 years old girl who was pursuing her degree from
Geeta college of emgineering, Naultha. She came close with a friend and batch mate,
Shikhar Singh who also a brilliant student. He was a luxurious lifestyle while Arundhati
was belong to a middle class background. Their families were introduced to each other.
2. In 9th November 2010, they got married according to Hindu rities. She had some
differences with her in laws on many occasions but the matter was mostly settled
amicably. Shikhar wanted to maintain his high life style which saw the family in a near
financial crisis.
3. In 11th December 2012, Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl. Shikhar took a loan
from Arundhati’s Parents and later he refused to return. When Shikhar was in drunken
state, he used to blame Arundhati to calling ‘barren woman’ and family of beggars. This
remarks hurt her a lot and once she even tried to slit her wrists and end her life but she
was saved by her sister-in-law. After the incident the Doctor or Physician did prescribe
some medicines for Arundhati and also advised her to consult a psychiatrist. She went to
her parent’s home and told Shikhar that she would never return. But her parents
convinced her to return to her in laws
4. In 10th April 2014, Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy which lead the family to a
financial mess. Shikhar was very disturb because of these financial complications. She
was more agitated and suffering from the depression as well as mood swings. On 9th
November 2014 written a suicide note by Arundhati.
5. In 4th January 2015, neighbours saw Arundhati running out of the house with her
sari on fire. Her mother in law was runningafter her shouting that Arundhati was out of
her mind to do something. She collapsed on the road. Then she was taken to hospital and
admitted with 88%burns. Where doctors declared her unfit to record her statement
immediately.
6. In 5th January 2015, Arundhati conditions improve then the police was called. She
gave her declaration before S.I. Sohan lal at 11:00 hours. In the declaration she accused
her Mother-in-law (Sarda) and Shikhar of setting her on fire and died at 12:30 hours on
the same day. The police sent the body for post mortem examination. Police also
conducted a search of the house. Police found a suicide note written by Arundhati on dated
9th November 2014 and a burnt can of kerosene oil in kitchen. Arundhati’s mother in law
and husband were arrested from the house and were arrested from the house and were
sent to judicial custody.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

-I-
WHETHER THEACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-IN-
LAWS) ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 304-B
OF IPC?

-II-
WHETHERTHE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-IN-
LAWS) ARE LIABLE FORMURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF
IPC?

-III-
WHETHERTHE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-IN-
LAWS) ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER SECTION
306 OF IPC?

-IV-

WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT OR

NOT?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC OR NOT?

That both the accused persons i.e. Shikhar(husband) and Sarda (mother-in-law) are
guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC ,1860.

ISSUE II

WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AMOUNT TO AN

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC 1860 OR NOT?

That both the accused persons i.e. Shikhar(husband) and Sarda(mother-in-law)

have committed cruelty against Arundhati (deceased) and thus are guilty of the
offences under Section 498-A IPC 1860.

ISSUE III

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE THE COMMON

INTENTION?

That sarda as well as shikhar had a common intention to commit cruelty against arundhati (the
deceased) and thus both are guilty for the common intention under section 34 ipc, 1860.

ISSUE IV

WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT OR

NOT?

That, it is humble request to the learned session court, that the brutal sarda &
shikhar should be severely punished.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR

MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

The state would humbly submit before the learned session court.

1. The section 299 of IPC ,1860 states that “culpable homicide- whoever cause death by
doing an act with intention of causing death or with intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely by such act to cause death, commit the offence of culpable homicide.
2. The section 300 of IPC,1860 states that ,”except in the cases hereinafter excepted
culpable homicide is a murder,
i. If the fact by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or-
ii. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
known to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom is caused or-
iii. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted in sufficient in the ordinary cause of
nature or course of death.
iv. If the person committing the Act knows that is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as likely to
cause death and commit such act without any excuse for incurring the rick
of causing death and commit such.
3. That, the combined effect of sec-299 of IPC, 1860 & sec- 300 of IPC, 1860 states that
whenever a death is caused with an intention of causing such bodily injury which is likely
to cause death or by an act having the knowledge that such an act is sufficient in ordinary
course of nature that it will cause death than the person who commit such murder.
4. The sarda & shikhar had intention of causing such a bodily injury to decrease such that
the death was the most probable result.
 5. That the sarda & shikhar knew that she was depressed & she in turn become more
agitated & started suffering from depression as well as mood swing.
6. That they planned to burn the decreased by pouring kerosene and lighting up the fire.
7. That the presence of sarda 4 Jan 2015 highly supported the fact establish by the prosecution
8. And, even there in-law and her husband did not provide anything to exhaust her fire or
save her life even
 Didn’t called the ambulance,
 Didn’t provide her blanket & water.
9. That this act of avoidance of the accused person clearly established the intention of the
accused person to murder the deceased, which is further established by the fact that as
situation got worsened & unless the neighbor not the deceased and hence, it clearly
indicates the intention of the accused person of murdering the deceased.
10. That, neighbor extinguished the fire. Here, at this instance the deceased made the dying
declaration that, “I was working in the kitchen & suddenly I felt a blast of fire on my
back. In on time my saree on fire. I saw my mother in law standing behind me so, that I
ran outside for help. My mother in law chased me so that she could stop me from getting
any help from neighbor. Then I fell on the road and both shikhar and my mother in law
did nothing to help”.
11. The dying declaration was over headed by sohan lal (sub-inspector of policed), on 5 Jan
2014 at hospital.
12. That on the fact it is clearly mention that neighbor saw that deceased ran out from her
house and her sari on fire.
13. That the deceased was enquired by sohan lal (sub-inspector) at that time deceased gave
dying declaration on the same day at 11:00 hours.
14. The hon’ble supreme court in Meeslla Ram Krishna v. state of AP 4held that “a dying
declaration made by nods & gestures or by sign languages has been held to be admissible
& also on the fact of particular case to be reliable.

4
(1994) 4 SCC 684
 15. The hon’ble chattisgarh high court in L.K Nayak v/s State5 has held that, “evidence of
relatives or related witness cannot be rejected in TOTO on the ground of their relation,
relative are last person to spare the real culprit & implicate & innocence falsely”.

16. That it was very crucial to notice that incident happened at that time , where there is no
medical assistance given to the deceased, nor did the accused person avail any medical
assistance for the deceased. It was only called by neighbor for medical assistance.
17. That sarda & shikhar didn’t actively participate in saving the deceased person neither at
the time when deceased was engulfed in fire, nor after the fire was extinguished hence,
did they always abstain from assisting by any means so as to save the deceased. This
intention or attitude clearly indicates that the accused person didn’t want the deceased to
survive. So, they left no stone unturned to murder her.
18. According to the medical report, the burns of the body of the deceased were 88% which
is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause a death of a person.

The evidence gathered are:-

 Dying declaration made by deceased to shoan lal(sub-inspector of police)

 Presence of accused at crime spot.
 A burnt cane of kerosene oil in kitchen.
19. That for the evidence and said fact Hon’ble Supreme Court had delivered many judgments.
20. That Hon’ble SC in Najma Faraghi v state of west Bengal6, it was held that dying
declaration would not lose a value on the ground that a maker died after making the
statement the question of relevance has to be consider on the fact of each case.
21. The fact of the deceased has 88% of burn injuries & there was no chance is too relevant.
22. Hon’ble SC in Pancho singh v. state of Bihar7, held that the statement in truthworthy or
more attempt to cover up latches of investigation. Dying declaration which inspires

5
2013 CrLJ 1792 (CHH)
6
AIR 1998 SC 682
7
AIR 2002 SC526
 confidence is a sufficient piece of evidence to sustain conviction. It is not necessary that
declaration should be of longish nature & nearly structured”.
23. The fact that the dying declaration which is given to sohan lal (sub-inspector of police) is
sufficient enough to inspire confidence in itself & thus, it is very strong evidence against
the accused.
24. That, the hon’ble SC in Mannu Raja v/s State of MP8, held that there is neither rule of
law nor of procedure that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corporation &
again hon’ble SC in State of UP v/s Ram Sagar Yadav 9held that,” if the court is
satisfied that dying declaration is true & voluntary it can base conviction without
corporation which was followed in Gopal Devi v/s State Govt. of NCT Delhi 10. Here,
the declaration of declassed is very much reliable, as it has been given with free consent&
without any threating as per Sec-32 (1) of Indian evidence act, 1872.
25. That the hon’ble SC in Charipali Shankar Rao v/s PP HC of 11AP held that an injured
person making his or her dying declaration is not expected to make an elaborate of
executive statement so as to cover each & every aspect of the incident in the case the
person was under the pain & agony of 90% burn. Similarly here, where as per the fact,
the body of deceases was burned upto 88% burn, expecting everything and every name
indying declaration is not prudent.
26. That the hon’ble SC in Bhola Turha v/s State of Bihar 12held that,” dying declaration
found to be reliable, no in consistence with testimony of eye witness conviction of caused
proper”.
27. That for the above mention reason had a murder. So they should be punished and held
guilty for all the offences.

8
AIR 1976 SC 2199
9
AIR 1976 SC 2199
10
AIR 1985 SC 416
11
2001 CrLJ NOC 158(Del
 ISSUE II
Whether the act of the accused person amount to an offence under
section 498 A of IPC 1860 or not?

The state would humbly submit before the learned session court.

The S-498A of IPC state that husband or relative of Husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty- whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband or woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3
yrs.’ & shall also be liable to find. The explanation of 498(A) state that, for the purpose of
this section,” cruelty” means-

 Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause gave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
 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.
1. That, as per section 216 of Cr.P.C, 1973 court is at discretion to alter the charges at
any stage before judgment, & in accordance to which, the prosecution would request
the court to alert the charge sheet & add sec-498A of IPC,1860.
2. That, in furtherance of afore-stated sec, the acts of the accused person is liable to be
punished on reasonable grounds which are mentioned below.
3. Parveen mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta 13that, “ Mental cruelty is a state of
4. mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioral pattern
by the other”
5. That, the shikhar subjected the deceased to cruelty. Her cruelty includes mental
torture as per explanation 498A of the IPC.
 6. That, the fact sheet clearly mentioned that shikhar Singh who has a luxurious
lifestyle while the deceased was the somber girl from middle class background. In
2009, they both were introduced each other to their family & on 9th Nov2010 they
got happily married & she moved into her matrimonial home with Shikhar’s family.
7. With the passage of time, the cruelty, the taunting & the maltreatment of husband
started and increased day by day.
8. I’d like to draw the attention towards-
The deceased was always subjected to the mental cruelty. Her cruelty include mental torture
which is evident from the below mentioned facts.
9. That, out of several instances, some of most pathetic/ cruel instances-
(1) The 1st incident was when she got so broken by the cruelty of shikhar that she ties
to commit suicide by slitting her wrist.
(2) When she was killed by the accused by burning.
10. According to the fact sheet, shikhar wanted to maintain his high life style, which
shows the family in near family crises.
11. After the birth of baby girl shikhar took the loan from arundhati’s parents of Rs 5
lacs which he refused to return. Due to which the deceased relation with
himdeteriorated & on many occasion fights turned physical also.
12. That, for mental cruelty Hon’ble SC has said that, “Mental cruelty & it’s effect
varies accordance to individual differences, differences in social status differences
b/w societies, it even said that attitude of a person for another person can also be
reason for mental cruelty.”14
13. That, in Raj Kumar Khanna vs State of (nct delhi) & ors 15 the HON’BLE Court
said that “Section 498-A IPC, has necessarily to be a wilful conduct which is of such
a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury
or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression “wilful” in the explanation
to Section 498-A IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to
be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the
woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to

14
MATLHI RAVI V. B.V.RAVI (2014) 7
SCC 395
 know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the
aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life,
limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such
a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative,
as the case may be”.
14. That, in P.Bikshapati and ors. Vs. State of A.P16, in this case court held that
“taking drink and coming late home much against the will of wife may not per se,
amount to cruelty but the acts coupled with beating and demanding dowry and
harassment to bring money clearly amount to cruelty under sec 498A.”
15. That, whenever shikhar was in drunken state, he used to blame from a family of
beggars. This remark hurt & she tried to slit her wrist and & her life.
16. Here, the cruelty was on high level the deceased went to her parents’ home but her
parents convinced her to return her in laws home.
17. On 10th April 2014, she gave a birth to baby boy which leads the family to financial
mess.
18. Due to this, shikhar was very disturbed and in turn he used to went his frustration on
deceased and she in turn become more agitated & started suffering from depression
as well as mood swing. My lordship now I’d like to draw your attention towards the
second incident i.e. when she was killed by the accused by burning.
19. That, in the A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar17, a 3 judge Bench of this Court
observed that the expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. “Cruelty can
be physical or mental cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be
defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to
life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension
of such a danger”.
18
20. That in the Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73, the
court said that “Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of
other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the

16
1989 Cri. L.j. 1186 (A.P)

17
(2005) 2 SCC 22
 other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty
as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or
injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party”.
21. Desh Deepak Kapoor v/s State ( Delhi Adminstration19) the Hon'ble Court has
proceeded , “That the court has concluded that the cruelty may cause physical and
mental hurt to the deceased and that there was always a danger to her life, limb and
health during the subsistence of the wedlock”.

22. That, in the fact sheet it’s clearly mention that On 4th January 2015, neighbours saw
Arundhati running out of the house with her sari on fire.
23. Also, she gave dying declaration that her mother-in-law chased her when saree is on
fire and also accused sarda could stop him to get any help from her neighbors.
24. That for the above mention reason had done cruelty. So they should be punished and
held guilty for all the offences.
 ISSUE III

WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE THE COMMON

INTENTION?

The state would humbly submit before the hon’ble learned session court,

That, the accused persons have the common intention and had prior meetings in minds. It
was a clear pre-planned murder committed by both Sarda and Shikhar.
Section 34 states that:-
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.].

A) Prior to burning

After few days of their marriage he started maltreating her. He used to taunt her for being from a
poor family. He used to drink and beat her at night. Whenever he beat her, none of the family
members came to stop him which shows the pathetic condition of Arundhati in her marital home
where no one used to care about her well being. Even her mother-in-law used to taunt her and
used to torture her. Due to these conditions , Arundhati got so stressed that she even tried to kill
herself but was saved by her sister-in-law. The accused Sarda kept silent and even supported her
in the acts of cruelty of Shikhar on Arundhati and hereby attracting the section 34 IPC,1860

B) At the time of incident of murder or deceased

1. That, sarda poured the kerosene oil lighted up the fine and accused
person A-1 and A-2 abstained from the saving the life of deceased. At
the time when deceased was engulfed, in fine. A-1 and A-2 didn’t
done anything. Even the ambulance was called by the neigubours.
 2. Hence, it clearly indicates that A-1 and A-2 had a Common Intention
and criminal acts constituted in furtherance of there Intention. Clearly
establish and thus attraction S-34 of IPC 1860 read with 302 of IPC.
3. That the burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual participationof
more than one person for commission of criminal act was done in
20
furtherance of common intention at a prior concert. 4. That in one of
the case,sc said that “its requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-purpose
prior concert therefore there must be prior meeting of mind. It can
also be developed at the supr of moment but there must be pre-
arrangement or premeditated concert.

C) After burning

That, common intention means a pre-oriented plan and acting in pursuance to the plan, thus
common intention must exist prior to the commission of the act in a point of time21.[

1. That the A-1 and A-2, soon after the fire was extinguish by neigbours the formers didn’t
assit the deceased in availing any form of medical treatment they clearly abstain
themselves from informing to the concerned authorities neither to medical practitioner
nor to police. They were so determined to murder the deceased that they did not even
inform her family members. Hence neither of the accused have no moral support to be
spared. And thus attracting sec. 34 of IPC, 1860, along with sec. 302 of IPC, 1860.
22
That in this case Kundula bala subrahmanyam v. state of A.P. the Hon’ble Court said
that where the facts are very much similar to this case and the case has been discussed on
following points:

20
Mrinal das v. State of Tripura., AIR 2011 SC 3753
21
shyamal gosh v. state of w.B,AIR 2012 SC 3539
 1. Dying Declaration: There was Dying Declaration done by
Arundhati, to sohan lal (sub inspector). Acc. To search report and
Dying Declaration her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her
and her husband and sarda set her on fire.
2. Medical Evidence: Acc. To M.R. of the Medical practitioner died
of 88% burns.
3. Conduct of the appellant immediately and after the occurrence
weather of the accused made any attempt what so ever to
extinguish the fire and save the deceased. They raised no alarm.
They stood as if they were waiting for her death, rather than
making any effort to save her. Their conduct thus run consistent
with hypothesis of the guilty. They didn’t try to extinguish the fire
and render any first aid to her.
4. In state of Punjab v. fauja singh23, if some act is done by the
accused person in furtherance of co-accused, he is equally liable
like his co-accused.

That for the above mention reason had a common intention. So they should be punished and held
guilty for all the offences.
 ISSUE IV

WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT OR NOT?

The state humbly submitted before the learned session court,

1. That, the deceased was constantly subjected to mental torture & from the beginning of the
marriage life of deceased at her husband’s place, it was not that of a happily married
mesmerized life instead it was a life full brutal hardship.

2. That, the deceased was brutally murdered by pouring kerosene & setting her on fire.

3. That, it is humble request to the learned session court, that the brutal Sarda & Shikhar
should be severely punished.

S.NO. ACCUSED PERSONS CHARGES

1. Shikhar Sec-302&498A read with 34
of IPC,1860
2. Sarda Sec-302&498A read with 34
of IPC,1860
 PRAYER

It is therefore, prayed that, your lordships may graciously be pleased. In the light of agreements
advanced and authorities cited, the prosecution humbly submits that the learned session court
may be pleaded to adjudge and declare that,

 The accused persons are held guilty of the offence and are convicted.

And pass any orders as your lordship may deem fit as it deems fit in the interest of equity justice
and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the state shall ever pray.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Sd/-
Counsels for the prosecution
 BEFORE

THE HONORABLE SESSION COURT, PANIPAT

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE…....................................................PROSECUTION

Vs.

SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS...................ACCUSED

Written Submission on behalf ofthe

ACCUSED

Downloaded by Yash Gulati (advyashgulati@gmail.com)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................................................................III
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS...............................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................................................VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................................................VIII
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................................X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................................XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................................2
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE
FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 304-B OF IPC? 2
Not subjected to Cruelty or Harassment..............................................................................2

Not in connection with any demand of dowry:....................................................................5

Cruelty soon before her death..............................................................................................6

ISSUE NO.2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE
FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC ? 9
Weak Circumstantial Evidence............................................................................................9

Relying on the above mentioned points, the Accused Shikhar and Sarda are entitled of right
to be acquitted as the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the guilty mind of the accused,
and there is reasonable hypothesis of their innocence...........................................................10

Absence of Mens Rea: 10

Absence of Actus Reus......................................................................................................11

Burden of Proof on Prosecution and Benefit of Doubt to respondent:...................................12

Preparation and subsequent conduct..................................................................................13

Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration....................................................................................14

ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR
ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC? 15
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................................18
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. CASES

2. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)
896......................................................................................................................................13
3. Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010(3) RCD (criminal)219 SC.....................4
4. Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal)180 (P&H..........................4
5. Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 490 (P&H................................4
6. Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., (2013) Cr.LA 919 SC...........12
7. Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828............................................1, 9
8. Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another. (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases
628................................................................................................................................15,
16
9. Manikandan V. State, (Criminal A(MD) No. 142 of 2016).................................................6
10. Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh, 2011 (2) RCR (criminal) 356 (P&H)...............................4
11. Padala Veera Reddy V. State of A.P, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 407.......8
12. Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734............................................15
13. Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 618........................................................1
14. Re: Jayaraman Case, AIR 1949 Mad. 66...........................................................................10
15. Sanjiv V. State, 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 2094: 2009 (164) 459 Delhi.............................5
16. Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr.LJ 2983, RLW 2008 (1) Raj. 477............7
17. State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad, 2010 (AIR 2009 SC 2307)......................................13
18. State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) SCC 73................................................................14
19. State V. Sridhar, 2000 CrLJ 328 (kant.)..............................................................................3
20. Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) KLT SN 10....................................................13
21. Sunil Bhiku Yadav V.State of Maharashtra,2010 (&) RCR (criminal) 205 (Bombay).......4
22. Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P. (2013) 3 SCC 684...............................................................2

 STATUTES REFERRED:
 Indian Penal Code, 1860(bare act), 2014 Universal Law Publishing Company
Ltd., New Delhi
 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(bare Act), 2014 Universal Law Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (bare Act), 2015 Universal Law Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi

 BOOKS REFERRED:
 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by S.N. Mishra XIX Edition-2014
 Commentaries on Indian Penal Code ( Act XLV of 1860), John Dawson Mayne
 Durga Das Basu ,Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 V Edition Vol I-II
 K.D.Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, V Edition
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 29th Edition

 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (23rd ed. Lexis Nexis,

Gurgaon, 2015)

 BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (7th ed. Orient Publishing Company,

New Delhi 2015)

 JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (2nd ed. Whytes& Co., New

Delhi 2015)

 S.K. SARVARIA, R.A. NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (9th ed. Lexis

NexisButterworths Gurgaon 2002).

 M.P. TANDON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (23th ed. Allahabad Law

Agency, Faridabad 2005).

 KD GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS (7th ed. Lexis Nexis,

Gurgaon 2013)

 DR. HARI SINGH GOUR, 1 INDIAN PENAL CODE (14th ed. Law Publishers Pvt.

Ltd., Allahabad 2013)

  DR. K.I. VIBHUTE, P.S.A. PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW (12th ed. Lexis Nexis,

Gurgaon 2015)

 JUSTICE G P SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (12th

ed. Lexis NexisButterworthsWadhwa, Nagpur 2010)

AMITA DHANDA, N.S. BINDRA’S, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (11th ed.

Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 2014)

 WEBSITE REFERRED:

 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.judis.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
 www.scconline.in
 www.westlaw.com

 DICTIONARIES AND LAW LEXICONS:

 Black’s Law Dictionary,7th Edition
 Oxford Dictionary,6th Edition, Oxford University Press, London, 2003
 Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,Ed. V, p- 510.
 http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/India_Criminal_Defense_Manual_-
_Various_Defense_Strategies
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Cr.L.J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Cr. L.R. CRIMINAL LAW REPORTER

Cr.P.C. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶ PARAGRAPH

P PAGE NUMBER

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT

& AND

ed. EDITION

§ SECTION

Anr. ANOTHER

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

v. Versus
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of Honorable Sessions
Court of Panipat under Sec.177 r/w Sec.184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Sec.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.’
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND:

That Arundhati Kumar was a 22-year-old girl who was pursuing her degree from Geeta

College of engineering, Naultha. A bright carreer awaited her as not only was she the

topper of her class, but also had interned with some acclaimed MNC’s of the country.

That in 2009, their families were introduced to each other, and on 9th of November 2010,

they got married according to Hindu rites. Arundhati moved into her matrimonial home

with Shikhar’s parents, sister and grandmother.

That she had some differences with her in laws on many occasions, but the matter was

mostly settled amicably.

That Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl on 11th December 2012. Shikhar then took a

loan from Arundhati’s parents of Rs. 5,00,000 which he later refused to return. Due to

which Arundhati’s relation with him deteriorated and on many occasions, fights turned

physical also.

That this remark hurt her a lot and once she even tried to slit her wrists and end her life

but was saved by her sister in law. After the incident, the physician did prescribe some

medicines for Arundhati and also advised her to consult a psychiatrist.

That on 10th April 2014Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy which led the family to a

financial mess. Shikhar was very disturbed because of these financial complications, and

in turn he used to vent his frustration on Arundhati. She in turn became more agitated and

started suffering from depression as well as mood swings.

CASE:

That on 4th January 2015, neighbors saw Arundhati running out of the house with her

sari on fire. Her mother in law was running after her shouting that Arundhati was out of

her mind to do something like this.

POLICE ACTION:

i. SohanLal sub Inspector of police, on the same day at 11.00 hours recorded

dying declaration of Arundhati.

ii. The police sent the body for post mortem examination.

iii. Police also conducted a search of the house.

iv. Arundhati’s mother in law and husband were arrested and recorded their

statements and were sent to judicial custody.

On 24th August, 2018 the case is listed for hearing in the Trial and Session Court of Panipat.
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE

FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECION 304-B OF IPC?

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE

FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE

FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR

DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 304-B OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the respondents Shikhar and Sarda are not

liable for Dowry Death under section-304B of IPC as none of the ingredients of section 304-B

are fulfilled herein as it is a case of suicide.

Not subjected to Cruelty or Harassment:

SC in Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P., held that,“the prosecution is required to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From

the evidence of the prosecution, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment

by the accused towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of

cruelty or harassment by the accused on the deceased.

In the case of State V. Sridhar, it was held that, “where the prosecution relied only on incident of

unhappiness of deceased with her husband and the allegation was only in the form of suggestion,

it doesnot establish criminal offence under either or both charges.

Hence, conviction under section 304-B is improper.

Not in connection with any demand of dowry:

It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel that the second essential to invoke the presumption

of Dowry Death under section 304-B requires that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in

connection with, any demand of Dowry which is not maintainable in our present case,
as according to dowry defined under section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides Dowry

must be made in relation to marriage of deceased(Arundhati) and the husband (Shikhar) and no

such demand has been ever made by him from Arundhati or her parents.

 In the case of Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was held that, “in order to

bring home a conviction under section 304-B of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead

evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that

such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry.”

 The counsel wants to submit that, there is no cruelty or harassment to Arundhati in

connection with any demand of dowry.

Cruelty soon before her death:

The interpretation of expression “soon before her death” has been done in the following cases as:

In the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that, “the

expression soon before death is a relative term and would depend upon circumstances of

each case. It is left to be determined by courts depending upon facts and circumstances of

thecase. And further held that;

i. The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be

much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.

i. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to

disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no

consequence.

And herein in our case, there is no such incident of cruelty in fact of any other small fight

between Arundhati and her in-laws is found soon before her death. Hence, there is nothing found
in the name of Cruelty or Harassment soon before her death. In fact by such acts of slitting her

wrists and suicide note she was torturing her in laws and was making their miserable life much

and more difficult.

ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SHARDA ARE LIABLE

FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar and Sarda are not liable

for murder under section 302 of IPC, because the facts and circumstances are such that the guilt

of accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Weak Circumstantial Evidence:

In the case of SatishNirankari v. State of Rajasthan SC held that:

All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt. The

circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other

than the accused. In our case it is clear from the factual description that it is a case of

circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident in question.

Absence of Mens Rea:

It was held in the case of Wakkar v. state of Uttar Pradesh that in case of circumstantial evidence,

motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes importance.

And in our case the prosecution has failed to establish the motive behind the guilt.

Absence of Actus Reus:

In our case, firstly there is neither active nor passive conduct on the part of the respondent,

Shikhar and Sarda. That is lack of Actus Reus in the case and secondly, there is no incident

recorded which infers the guilty mind or action of the respondent which tend to result in such

consequences (i.e. Arundathi’s death)

Burden of Proof and Benefit of Doubt:

There no such pre planned Preparation of the act or any negative previous conduct; if it was so

then she could not manage to run away from the spot. If they pre-planned the murder of

Arundhati, they would not let her ran out of the house.Hence, they are innocent and should be

acquitted.

Preparation and Subsequent Conduct:

It is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond the reasonable doubt and when

there is any hypothesis and even a certain doubt as to guilt then the benefit of doubt must go in

the favour of the accused. Hence, both Shikhar and Sarda have right to be acquitted.

Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration:

In our present case, the statement made by the deceased before the investigating officer(sub-

inspector) shall not be relied upon solely to convict the Accused Shikhar and Sarda.
ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?

It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar and Sarda are not liable

for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC as on careful reading of Section 306 read with

Section 107 of IPC, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are not made out. Hence,

they are not liable under section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:

ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND

SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION
304-B OF IPC?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the respondents Shikhar and Sarda are not
liable for Dowry Death under section-304B of IPC as none of the ingredients of section 304-B
are fulfilled herein as it is a case of suicide.

In the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu24SC held that the presumption shall be
raised only on proof of the following essentials:

1. The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry
death of a woman.
2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
3. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
4. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

That means the presumption given under section 304-B of IPC and under section 113-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 shall only be raised, if the prosecution shows material evidence to proof the
abovementioned essentials otherwise, it is not maintainable.

Similarly, in our case the above points are not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Not subjected to Cruelty or Harassment:

In the case of Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi25Justice RS Teji has observed that, “it is
necessary to establish the offence of section 498-A IPC to prove the charges under section 304-B

24
Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
25
Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 618
of IPC and if failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of respondent under section
498- A of IPC, tantamount to not proving the commission of offence under section 304-B.

Whose observations have been relied upon by SC in Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P.26, relevant
portions from the judgment read as under:

“the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution, we find that they
have made general allegations of harassment by the accused towards the deceased and have not
brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the accused on the deceased.

In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of
Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that theaccused,
as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to
Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption underSection 113B of
the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the
prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the
accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under
Sections 498A and 304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.”

Accordingly, the essential ingredient of offence under section 498-A is that, the husband or his
relative has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the explanation of section 498-A of IPC, which
includes:

Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide:

And which is absent in our case, there is no willful conduct on the part of shikhar and sarda
which would drive Arundhati to commit suicide. Firstly, it is nowhere provided that she had
scuffle with her in laws, though in the very beginning she had some differences with her in laws
on many occasions, that can be due to some ideological differences between them as after

26
VipinJaiswal V. State of A.P. (2013) 3 SCC 684
marriage it takes a little time to adjust by everyone, and so far it is provided that the matters were
settled amicably most of the times.

Secondly, Shikhar the husband of the deceased was unable to maintain his lifestyle and was
facing financial crises, he has incurred the debt of Rs. 5 lakhs, had the responsibilities of his
grandmother, sister, parents, his wife and children too. So, considering this he was in great stress
and suffered from mental distress. In fact, he profoundly required the support his wife i.e.
Arundhati to face ups and downs of the wife but on the contrary she acted as a person of frail
mentality and committed suicide leaving behind her 2 years old daughter and only 9 year old
son. He made the life of her in laws more miserable by this act.

Additional session Judge, Manoj Jain in a case gave a view that,“ it would be hazardous to
unnecessary overstretch there trivial issues of any household and to give those color of cruelty as
defined in explanation attached to section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, minor quarrel or one or two
stray incidents spread over a period of 4 yrs. would not make it to be a case falling within the
ambit of cruelty or Dowry Death.

Harassment to meet any unlawful demand:

In our case there is no such demand, as nothing has been given in the facts which may even
remotely suggest that Arundhati was subjected to any harassment on account of any unlawful
demand of any property or valuable security.

Moreover, this is just a frivolous allegation made against Shikhar and Sarda just to harass them.
One such view was expressed by Former Justice KT Thomas in his article titles ‘woman and
the law’, that “there is a general complaint that section 498-A of the IPC is subject to gross
misuse.”

As when women accuse their husbands under section 498-A which is a non bailable and
cognizable offence, if the man is innocent, he doesn’t at once get justice and suffers without any
mistake.

Therefore, the court while dealing with such sensitive issue must be pretty sure and invoke such
section carefully as safeguard an innocent person from harassment made on account of baseless,
unfounded and malicious allegations like in our case, except the small issues , there is no
incident of harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand.

In the case of State V. Sridhar27, it was held that, “where the prosecution relied only on incident
of unhappiness of deceased with her husband and the allegation was only in the form
ofsuggestion, it does not establish criminal offence under either or both charges. Hence,
conviction under section 304-B is improper.

Not in connection with any demand of dowry:

It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel that the second essential to invoke the
presumption of Dowry Death under section 304-B requires that such cruelty or harassment was
for, or in connection with, any demand of Dowry which is not maintainable in our present case,as
according to dowry defined under section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides Dowry
must be made in relation to marriage of deceased(Arundhati) and the husband (Shikhar) and no
such demand has been ever made by him from Arundhati or her parents.

 In the case of Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh28, it was held that, “in order to
bring home a conviction under section 304-B of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead
evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that
such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry.”
 In the case of Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh29, it was held that demand of Rs. 50,000 to
start work not be construed as Demand of Dowry”

And in our case Shikhar has taken a debt of Rs. 5 Lakhs from Arundhati’s parents not as Dowry
but as a help in his condition of financial crises.

 In the case of Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab30, it was held that, “demand of a sum of
Rs. 3 lacs was made by way of help, had no connection with marriage performed. It was
not demand of dowry within meaning of DOWRY.”

27
State V. Sridhar, 2000 CrLJ 328 (kant.)
28
Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010(3) RCD (criminal)219 SC
29
Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh, 2011 (2) RCR (criminal) 356 (P&H)
30
Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 490 (P&H)
  In the case of Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab31, it was held that “the Demand for a
sum of Rs. 70,000 for setting up a television shop would not amount to demand of
dowry.”
 In the case of Sunil BhikuYadavV.State of Maharashtra,32it was held that “any demand
made by accused cannot be said to be demand made for dowry.”
 In the case of Sanjiv V. State33, it was held that, Mere evidence of Cruelty or harassment
is not sufficient to attract provisions of section 304-B of IPC.

So, considering all the above mentioned cases and arguments, the counsel wants to submit that,
there is no cruelty or harassment to Arundhati in connection with any demand of dowry.

Cruelty soon before her death:

The interpretation of expression “soon before her death” has been done in the following cases as:

In the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar Pradesh34, it was held that,
“the expression soon before death is a relative term and would depend upon circumstances
of each case. It is left to be determined by courts depending upon facts and circumstances of
the case. And further held that;
ii. The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be
much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question.
iv. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to
disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence.

And herein in our case, there is no such incident of cruelty but any other small fight between
Arundhati and her in laws is found soon before her death.

In the case of Mustafa ShahdalShaikh V. State of Maharashtra35, it was held that,“ the
expression ‘soon before her death’ means interval between cruelty and death should not be

31
Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal)180 (P&H)
32
Sunil BhikuYadavV.State of Maharashtra,2010 (&) RCR (criminal) 205 (Bombay)
33
Sanjiv V. State, 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 2094: 2009 (164) 459 Delhi
34
Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 939:2010(6) R.A.J. 342 SC
35
Mustafa ShahdalShaikh V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 397
 much. There must be existence of a proximate and live links between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the concerned death.”

After considering the above mentioned cases, we infer that 3rd essential requires live links
between the Cruelty done and the concerned death. So, the counsel further contends that:
1) Firstly, there is no cruelty on the part of Shikhar and Sarda as pleaded earlier.
2) Secondly, there is no such act, soon before the death of Arundhati.
3) She committed suicide due to her frail mentality and for her foolish decision another
person cannot be blamed.
4) Though Arundhati was well-educated and was a brilliant student she failed to manage
her married life.
5) Only due to low lying disturbances in her married life she dragged herself into mental
depression and started acting in a more agitated manner as provided in the factsheet that:
i. Firstly, she used to argue with her in laws on many occasions.
ii. Secondly, she even tried to slit her wrist and wanted to end her life.
iii. Thirdly, investigating officer found a suicide note by Arundhati dated 9th Nov.,
2014 (while conducting search of a house under section 157 of Cr.P.C.)
iv. Fourthly, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her and set herself
to fire on 4th Jan., 2015.

So, we can say that Arundhati was a woman of low tolerance power, was hyper-sensitive and
was having an unstable mind, that’s why she again and again tried to end her life by her own.

Hence, there is nothing found in the name of Cruelty or Harassment soon before her death. In
fact by such acts of slitting her wrists and suicide note she was torturing her in laws and was
making their miserable life much and more difficult.

In the case of Manikandan V. State36,Justice P Devadass observed that, “sometimes

the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the victim himself/herself,
unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the part of the accused. A person may
die like a coward like on his failure in the examination, a student may commit suicide.

36
Manikandan V. State, (Criminal A(MD) No. 142 of 2016)
 They are weak minded. They are persons of frail mentality and for their foolish act
another person cannot be blames as the case in our present situation.

There is no willful conduct or act or harassment in connection with any demand of dowry, soon
before her death which would make Shikhar and Sarda liable under section 304-B.Hence, it is
purely a case of suicide and not Dowry Death.
ISSUE NO.2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE
LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC ?
It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar and Sarda are not liable
for murder under section 302 of IPC, because the facts and circumstances are such that the guilt
of accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Weak Circumstantial Evidence:

In the case of Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan37 SC held that:

1. Circumstances should be fully proved.

2. Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
3. All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt.
4. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of
any person other than the accused.

And in our case it is clear from the factual description that it is a case of circumstantial evidence
and there is no eye witness to the incident in question.

Another aspect which is to be kept in mind is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused charged for such an offence and too beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where there
is no eyewitness and, which rests upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obligated to
prove all those circumstances which leave no manner of doubts to establish the guilt of the
accused person,
.i.e., chain of continuous circumstances must be complete and must clearly pointto the guilt of
the accused. Chain of continuous circumstances means that all the circumstances are linked up
with one another and the chain do not get broken in between.

And herein no such complete chain is found and there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
accused, so the benefit of doubt must go in the favour of the accused. And further, we keep in
mind that this court is dealing with criminal matter where respondent is charged with
committingmurder of Arundhati. So, the criminal cases cannot be decided on the basis of
hypothesis.

37
SatishNirankari v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr.LJ 2983, RLW 2008 (1) Raj. 477
  In the case of Padala Veera Reddy V. State of A.P., 38Following tests laid down which
need to be kept in mind:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of
the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by
the Accused and none else; and
 Sir Alfred Wills in his book Wills' Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) lays down the
following Rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which
infers legal accountability.
(3) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with
the innocence of the Accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of his guilt; and
(4) if there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be
acquitted.
Relying on the above mentioned points, the Accused Shikhar and Sarda are entitled of right to be
acquitted as the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the guilty mind of the accused, and there
is reasonable hypothesis of their innocence.

Absence of Mens Rea:

It is humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that to establish the guilt of the accused under section
302, two essentials elements are Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Mensrea is an essential part of
deciding whether an act is culpable or not. Mensrea displays specific intent by the accused for
the commission of the crime for which he is charged. The accused must be proven to have
knowingly committed the crime, and had full knowledge of their actions and must have malafide

38
PadalaVeera Reddy V. State of A.P, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 407
intent towards the victim. But herein, by relating it to the facts of our case there is no such
incident which proves the Mens Rea of the accused, infact Arundhati never had any quarrel with
her mother-in-law i.e. Sarda, the accused, minor incidents of arguments with her husband on
small issues can take place in any household and it would be unsafe and rather hazardous to
unnecessarily overstretch these trivial isuues and to give those colour of criminal intention.

However, if respondent had the intention to commit the murder of arundhati, they could have run
away from the spot of incident. As admittedly, there is no eyewitness of the whole incident.

If the respondent had intention to commit murder shikhar would not have brought water to douse
the fire and sarda would not have shouted for help and ran behind her.

It was held in the case of Wakkar v. state of uttar Pradesh39that in case of circumstantial
evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes importance. And
in our case the prosecution has failed to establish the motive behind the guilt.

Absence of Actus Reus:

The second main essential for constituting a crime is the Actus Reus. Actus Reus is the physical
aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have done something or omitted to do something,
resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act, there can
beno crime an act alone does not make a crime. In certain cases, circumstances of the case are
also taken into consideration, and are often used to either conclusively prove guilt, or can be used
to prove reasonable doubt of intention.

 In Re: Jayaraman Case, Justice AnantanarayananNatesen40, it was observed that,

“the new test (foresight of consequences) is found in the requirement that the accused person,
when pursuing the life of active conduct (or passive) in cases where there is a legal duty to
actionwhich resulted in the harm for which he is charged i.e. the Actus Reus, must have been
aware that certain sped fled harmful consequences would or could follow. Such a test arises
naturally from the adoption of the ethical approach to the problem of crime, since in many minds
it is hard to see any moral blame.”

39
Wakkar v. state of uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306
40
Re: Jayaraman Case, AIR 1949 Mad. 66
Similarly, in our case, firstly there is neither active nor passive conduct on the part of the
respondent, Shikhar and Sarda. That is lack of Actus Reus in the case and secondly, there is no
incident recorded which infers the guilty mind or action of the respondent which tend to result in
such consequences (i.e. Arundathi’s death).

Burden of Proof on Prosecution and Benefit of Doubt to respondent:

The inalienable interface of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in a criminal case
on the prosecution has been succinctly expounded in the following passage from the treatise
"The Law of Evidence" fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 445:

The presumption of innocence states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
As explained above, the burden of proof Rule has a number of functions, one of which is to
provide a Rule of decision for the fact finder in a situation of uncertainty. Another function is to
allocate the risk of misdecision in criminal trials. Because the outcome of wrongful conviction is
regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal the Rule is constructed so as to
minimise the risk of the former. The burden of overcoming a presumption that the Defendant is
innocent therefore requires the state to prove the Defendant's guilt.

The above quote thus seemingly concedes a preference to wrongful acquittal compared to the
risk of wrongful conviction. Such is the abiding jurisprudential concern to eschew even the
remotest possibility of unmerited conviction.

 The Concise Dictionary of Law, Oxford Paperbacks has this comprehensive yet
succinct definition of burden of proof which is worthy of reproduction:

"Burden of Proof: The duty of a party to litigation to prove a fact or facts in issue. Generally the
burden of proof falls upon the party who substantially asserts the truth of a particular fact (the
prosecution or the Plaintiff). A distinction is drawn between the persuasive (or legal) burden,
which is carried by the party who as a matter of law will lose the case if he fails to prove the fact
in issue; and the evidential burden (burden of adducing evidence or burden of going forward),
which is the duty of showing that there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue fit for the
consideration of the trier of fact as to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
This applies with full force particularly in fact situations where the charge is the sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence.

 Addressing this aspect, however, is the following extract also from the same
treatise "The Law of Evidence" fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 483:

Where the case against the accused depends wholly or partly on inferences from circumstantial
evidence, fact finders cannot logically convict unless they are sure that inferences of guilt are the
only ones that can reasonably be drawn. If they think that there are possible innocent
explanations for circumstantial evidence that are not "merely fanciful", it must follow that thereis
a reasonable doubt about guilt. There is no rule, however, that judges must direct juries in terms
not to convict unless they are sure that the evidence bears no other explanation than guilt.

 Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors.,41it is held that,
“The circumstances brought forth by the prosecution do not Rule out in absolute terms the
hypothesis of the innocence of the Appellant. We thus consider it to be wholly unsafe to
maintain his conviction as recorded by the courts below. We are therefore inclined to extend
benefit of doubt to him. The conclusions drawn by the courts below are not tenable on the basisof
the evidence available. The appeal is thus allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by
the courts below is hereby set aside. The Appellant be released from the jail forthwith if he is not
required in any other case.”

Hence, by referring to all the above mentioned points, and linking it with our present case, it is
clear that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond the reasonable doubt and when there
is any hypothesis and even a certain doubt as to guilt then the benefit of doubt must go in the
favour of the accused. Hence, both Shikhar and Sarda have right to be acquitted.

Preparation and subsequent conduct:

Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides with:

“The conduct of any party to any suit or proceeding is relevant if such conduct influences or is
influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact or whether it was previous or subsequent

41
Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., (2013) Cr.LA 919 SC
thereto.”And in our case the subsequent conduct of the respondents is positive they tried to save
her by shouting for help and bringing water to douse the fire, and took her to the hospital. In
these kinds of cases the accused tend to flee away but herein the subsequent conduct of accusedis
positive and that should be taken into consideration as relevant. Secondly, there no such pre
planned Preparation of the act or any negative previous conduct; if it was so then she could not
manage to run away from the spot. If they pre planned the murder of Arundhati, they would not
let her ran out of the house. Hence, they are innocent and should be acquitted.
Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration:
 In case of Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh,42 it was held that, “the statement given by
the injured to the investigating officer is not admissible as Dying Declaration under
section 32.
 In case State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad,43it was held that, “when the statement of
the deceased was recorded by the Investigation officer it was not a Dying declaration,
the conviction recorded only on the basis of this statement were therefore not correct.

So, in our present case, the statement made by the deceased before the investigating officer
(sub-inspector) shall not be relied upon solely to convict the Accused Shikhar and Sarda.

42
Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) KLT SN 10
43
State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad, 2010 (AIR 2009 SC 2307)
ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE
LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar and Sarda are not liable
for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC as on careful reading of Section 306 read with
Section 107 of IPC, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are not made out.

The counsel want to rely upon the judgment of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West
Bengal44where SC held that," The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was recently reiterated by the Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjabas
follows: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that
person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of
entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting
thecommission of offence under Section 306IPC.

In case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal45l the Court has observed that the courts should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced
in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domesticlife quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a
given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that theaccused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

Similarly, in our present case Arundhati acted in a hypersensitive manner as there were small or
trivial differences between them which is quite common and that may be possible because
Shikhar was disturbed and suffering from mental depression due to financial complications.
Moreover, there is nowhere provided in the facts that Arundhati had ever any kind of scuffle

44
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 896
45
State of W.B. v. OrilalJaiswal, (1994) SCC 73
with her mother-in-law that would instigate her to commit suicide. Hence, there is not even a
single statement or record which shows the abetment for the commission of suicide.

In order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must
scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence
adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim
had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in
mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their
being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC should
not be sustainable.

Therefore, in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC, the person who is
said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As held by Supreme
Court in case, Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal 46that offence of abetment by instigation
depends upon the intention of the person who abets. Also in case, Madan Mohan Singh Vs.
State of Gujarat and Another. ,47 SC is of the view that:"In order to bring out an offence under
Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result
ofthat abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC.

And the counsel is of the clear opinion that there is no question of presence of such intention in
our present case, required for offence under Section 306, IPC as nothing has been provided in the
facts with regard to this.

In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Court acquitting the
accused said: "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to

46
Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734
47
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another. (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”Therefore, firstly the presence of mens rea is
the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a
quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of
anger and emotional. Secondly, their marital relations get ruined after the birth of the second
child, i.e., after 10thApril, 2014 ensued by the financial instability then the suicide note by
Arundhati dated 9thNovember 2014 and then Arundhati committed suicide on 4th January
2015.

Assuming that the deceased had taken the arguments seriously, but she had enough time in
between to think over and reflect and to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which she
ultimately ended her life. Therefore, it cannot be said that the arguments, which had been done
between the deceased and respondent drived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the
deceased on 4th January 2015 is not proximate to the arguments made. The fact that the deceased
committed suicide on 4th January 2015 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct
result of the quarrel taken place between them.

Hence, Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". What
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present
one is not a case of that where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued courseof
conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred as word uttered in the fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."

It is extremely unfortunate that person has committed suicide and brought her life to an end for
stress arising out of matrimonial dispute which in these days is not a rare of the rarest happenings
in the social spectrum. Thus, continuance of proceedings against respondents shall be the abuse
of process of law. Because, guilt of the accused must be proved by the direct evidence and
activerole on the part of him in the abetment by direct or indirect instigation or to act or facilitate
to commission of suicide which will have the necessary ingredients but are not there in our
present case. Hence, they are not liable under section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide.
 PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on the behalf

of Respondents will like to pray before the honorable Sessions Court to kindly –

Acquit the defendant of all the charges-

Of Dowry Death, thereby, acquit from any punishment under section 304-B, IPC;
Of murder and, thereby, acquit from any punishment under section 302, IPC;
Of Abetment of suicide U/S- 306, IPC;

And to pass any other judgment which it may deem fit and proper in the light of natural justice,
equity and good conscience for which the counsels on the behalf of respondents shall duty bound
forever pray.

Humbly submitted by:

Counsel on the behalf of Respondents