DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U.

, SURAT

CLASS MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

2019-20

IN THE SESSION COURT OF JAIPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:____________OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(COMPLAINT)

V.

AJAY AND OTHER’S

(ACCUSED)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER:

SECTIONS 498A, 304B AND 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

FIJIMOL FRANKLINE

B.Com.LL.B. (Hons.)

Semester-3

Roll.No: 8

Subject: Law Of Crimes-1

Faculty: Prof. Twinkle Desai

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT
 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………….……..2

LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………..3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..4

STATUTES……………………………………4

TABLE OF CASES…………………………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………..5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..11

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..18

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………19

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code
Sec. Section
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
SC Supreme Court
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal
SCR Supreme Court Report

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
 DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961
 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

TABLE OF CASES

1 State of A.P. v. Tota Basava Punnaiah and others 1989 Cr.LJ 2330
2 S.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996)4 SS 56
3 Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar 2006
4 Dhain Singh Anr. v. State of Punjab 2004 Supp(3) SCR 442
5 Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216
6 Arun Garg v. State of Punjab 2004

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Learned Session Court, has the jurisdiction to decide this case, and this jurisdiction has been
conferred to it through Sec. 177 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which says that “Every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.”

The Learned Session Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter as per section 26of
Cr.P.C., 1973, which says that, any offence under IPC may be tried by the Courts of Session.
Moreover through Schedule-1 of Cr.P.C. 1973, the Court of Session is competent to hear and
decide the matter.

The Court is also requested to determine the legal consequences, including the rights and
obligations of the Parties, arising from its judgments on the questions presented in the case.

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that following are the facts of the present case:

 The following is the list of persons involved:

A-1 Mr. Ajay Husband of the deceased
A-2 Mr. Vihaan Father-in-law of deceased
A-3 - Mother-in-law of deceased
D Mrs.Priya Deceased
PW-1 Mr.Pradeep Chemist
PW-2 Mr.Mahendra Servent in Ajay’s house
PW-3 Mrs.Vedika Servent in Ajay’s house
PW-4 Mr.Prakash Servent in Ajay’s house
PW-5 Mr.Brijesh Priya’s brother
PW-6 Mr.Nagpal Handwriting expert
PW-7 Mr.Tejpal Handwriting expert
PW-8 Dr.Ramakrishnan Doctor who examined Priya
PW-9 Dr. Rana Professors of Forensic Medicine
PW-10 Dr.Ahuja Professors of Forensic Medicine

 Deceased and A-1 were students of MIT University. They developed feelings for each
other. Both families also knew each other through a common social circle. So they told
their families about their interest to spend the rest of their lives together and the families
agreed.
 Marriage was conducted on 17th July 2017.
 At the time of marriage A-2 demanded thRs.1crore and Rs.50 lakhs as marriage
expenses, which were fully paid.
 Then also deceased’s in-laws increasingly started to pressurize her to ask her father to
provide more money.

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

 There was a demand for an Audi car and a fixed deposit worth Rs.1.5 crore in pursuance
of which a fixed deposit worth Rs.50 lakhs was made by Mr.Paresh in Priya’s name.
 There were many fights between deceased and A-3 but the A-1 always took deceased
side , he also showered with many gifts.
 Later on August 2017, deceased was diagnosed with haematemesis. Necessary treatment
very given. A-1 took good care of her till she recovered.
 Later she became isolated from family. She was put under immense pressure by A-3 to
give birth to male child within 1 year otherwise she might be thrown out of the house.
 On December 2017 deceased was conceived and on September 2018 she gave birth to a
girl child. So she was sent to her parental home.
 The deceased was maintaining a dairy as it was her childhood habit.
 In December 2018, A-1 reached out to deceased, apologized to her for the ill-treatment,
and brought her back home. But his behavior towards her changed.
 On 15th January 2019 deceased was hospitalized due to worse condition
 On 16th January 2019 , her condition worsened so she informed the nurse that she was
poisoned by her husband.
 On 17th January 2019,she realized that her chances of survival were slim, she informed
the doctor that it was A-1, A-2 and A-3 responsible for her condition. The hospital found
the situation suspicious and informed the police and called for the Judicial Magistrate.
However before the arrival, she died.
 Given the previous incidences of dowry demand and mental torture, deceased’s father
filed a police complaint against A-1, A-2 and A-3. The complaint was registered as an
FIR under Sections 498A, 304B, 306/34 of IPC,1860
 Some police investigation facts are as follows:
i) A-2 purchased organo-phosphorous from PW-1 to kill pests
ii) PW-2 heard cries of the deceased on the day she died
iii) PW-3 and PW-4 smelt poisonous odour from the room and noticed bruises and
contusions on her face
iv) PW-5 also smelt poison from the room, then PW-5 questioned A-1,he told not to
interfere in their personal life. Later when PW-5 questioned the deceased she raised
her hands towards A-2 and A-3.
7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT
 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

v) PW-8 was examined the deceased at 5p.m.and noted the patient had comsumed some
poisonous substances. Later he referred the deceased at SMS Hospital, Jaipur which
was informed to the police.
vi) PW-9 and PW-10 revealed in post mortem report that the dead was due to asphyxia
secondary to organo-phosphorus poison and many ante-mortem injuries were found
on the deceased’s body
 Charges were framed under sections 498A, 304B and 34 of IPC, and the Dowry
Prohibition Act, against the accused persons.

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

STATEMENT OF ISSUSES

Issue No:1

 Is it a Dowry Death as per Sec. 304B of IPC?

Issue No:2

 Is it a cruelty as per Sec. 498A of IPC ?

Issue No:3

 Do the accused persons have any Common Intention?

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue No:1

Is it a Dowry Death as per Sec. 304B of IPC?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that the accused is guilty for dowry death under Sec.304B of IPC as everything changed with the
deceased after the marriage. Even though the agreed money was fully paid. The in-laws of the
deceased pressurize her for more money. There was a demand for an Audi Car and a fixed
deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore. After giving birth to a girl child she was sent to her parental home. Later
after 3 months she was brought back by A-1, but his behavior had changed towards her.

Issue No:2

Is it a cruelty as per Sec. 498A of IPC ?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that the accused is guilty for cruelty under Sec.498A of IPC as the Post Mortem Report by PW-9
and PW-10 revealed that there were many ante-mortem injuries found on the body of deceased
which are proves of cruelty. And there many quarrels between the deceased and A-3 in regards
to dowry and pressure to give birth to a boy child within 1year.

Issue No:3

Do the accused persons have any Common Intention?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that the accused is guilty for common intention under Sec.304B of IPC as A-1, A-2 and A-3 had
common intention as after giving birth to a girl child in September 2018 deceased was thrown
out of the house to her parental home. Later in December 2018, A-1 reached to deceased home
and apologized her for all ill-treatment and brought her back. A-1 behaviour towards deceased
was changed. There was a gap of 3 months which means that if he really loved her he will not
wait for 3 months. So there is a chance of conspiracy between A-1, A-2 and A-3 during this time
period. And the behaviour of A-1 has been changed towards the deceased.

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE NO: 1

Is it a Dowry Death as per Sec. 304B of IPC?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that

The death of deceased, was a dowry death as it does meet the essential ingredient of Sec. 304B
of IPC, 1860.

Sec. 304B of IPC says that, “Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily
injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

Here all the elements of dowry death are present in this present case.

 Death caused by bodily injury

The Post Mortem Report by PW-9 and PW-10 revealed that the deceased had died due to
asphyxia secondary to the organo-phosphorus poison.
The organo-phosphorous was purchased by A-2 from PW-1.
 Within seven years of marriage
The marriage was conducted on 17th July 2017.
The death of the deceased was on 17th January 2019.
So the time period was 1 year and 6 months, i.e. within 7 years
 Cruelty soon before death
PW-8 examined the deceased firstly, he noted that the patient had consumed some poisonous
substances, contusion reddish in colour and swelling over the left side of her eye, and both
lips were swollen.

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

The Post Mortem Report by PW-9 and PW-10 revealed that there were many signs of cruelty
as there were many ante-mortem injuries found on the body of deceased:
(a) 10 cm *6cm bruise on the right periorbital area with swelling of right eye lid with two
concentric nail scratches abrasions, one on forehead and other on upper eye lid. Bluish in
colour.
(b) 9cm * 4 cm big contusion, bluish in colour, on intra-orbital area and check on left side.
(c) 1/2cm * 1/2cm contusion on the inner side of lower lip towards left side mid-line with
respect to left lateral incisor (lower). Blue in colour.
(d) 7cm * 5 cm large purple coloured patch over dorsum of right hand with multiple needle
prick marks (iatrogenic).
These all prove that cruelty was done either A-1, A-2 or A-3.
The injuries suggest that harassment was done before 2-3 days of the death of the
deceased.
 Demand for dowry
Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 says that, “Dowry means any property or
valuable securities given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.”
At the time of marriage the agreed amount (Rs.1crore and Rs.50 lakhs as marriage expenses)
were fully paid.
Then also deceased’s in-laws increasingly started to pressurize her to ask her father to
provide more money.
There was a demand for an Audi car and a fixed deposit worth Rs.1.5 crore in pursuance of
which a fixed deposit worth Rs.50 lakhs was made by Mr.Paresh in Priya’s name.
 Case Laws:
State of A.P. v. Tota Basava Punnaiah and others
In this case it was observed that even the deceased died within 3 years after the marriage, still
the death comes within the scope of Sec.304B of IPC, as it shown that she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any
demand of dowry.
S.Gopal Reddy v.State of A.P.
In this case the S.C. stated that any demand for any money, property or valuable securities
‘before, at or after’ the marriage would be covered under the expression of “dowry”.

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

Arun Garg v. State of Punjab

This case is similar to the present case, the first two element were easily proved, the third
element was under confussion. The court stated that any demand for money, property or
valuable securities was done by the accused towards the deceased, then the third element is
proved.
 According to Sec. 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harrasment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the
Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”
Case law:
Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar
In this case the burden was on the accused to prove the victim was not subjected to cruelty or
harrasment soon before the death in relation to demand for dowry.

So the A-1, A-2 and A-3 are guilty for dowry death under Sec.304B of IPC.

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

ISSUE NO: 2

Is it a cruelty as per Sec. 498A of IPC ?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that

The death of deceased, was under cruelty as it does meet the essential ingredient of Sec. 498A of
IPC, 1860.

Sec.498A of IPC says that, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Explanation:
For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harrasment 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.

Here all the elements of cruelty are present in this present case.

 Willful conduct by accused which caused grave injury to the deceased

The Post Mortem Report by PW-9 and PW-10 revealed that there were many ante-
mortem injuries found on the body of deceased:
-10 cm *6cm bruise on the right periorbital area with swelling of right eye lid with two
concentric nail scratches abrasions, one on forehead and other on upper eye lid. Bluish in
colour.
-9cm * 4 cm big contusion, bluish in colour, on intra-orbital area and check on left side.

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

-1/2cm * 1/2cm contusion on the inner side of lower lip towards left side mid-line with
respect to left lateral incisor (lower). Blue in colour.
-7cm * 5 cm large purple coloured patch over dorsum of right hand with multiple needle
prick marks (iatrogenic).
These are the proves that grave injuries are caused by accused to the deceased
 Harrasment of deceased for dowry
Sec. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 says that, “Dowry means any property or
valuable securities given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.”
At the time of marriage the agreed amount (Rs.1crore and Rs.50 lakhs as marriage
expenses) were fully paid.
Immediately after the marriage things changed for the deceased.
Then also deceased’s in-laws increasingly started to pressurize her to ask her father to
provide more money.
There was a demand for an Audi car and a fixed deposit worth Rs.1.5 crore in pursuance
of which a fixed deposit worth Rs.50 lakhs was made by Mr.Paresh in Priya’s name.
There were a lot of quarrels between the deceased and A-3.
There was a pressure by her mother-in-law to give birth to a male child within 1year
 Case laws:
S.Gopal Reddy v.State of A.P.
In this case the S.C. stated that any demand for any money, property or valuable
securities ‘before, at or after’ the mariage would be covered under the expression of
“dowry”.
Dhain Singh v. State of Punjab
The court held that the victim has clearly suffered cruelty and harrasment with Sec.498A
of IPC, where the accused sent the deceased away from his home and called her back to
his home. Later within 2 months the death of deceased occured.

So the A-1, A-2 and A-3 are guilty for cruelty under Sec.498A of IPC.

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

ISSUE NO : 3

Do the accused persons have any Common Intention?

The counsel on behalf of the complaint would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court
that

The death of deceased, was under common intention as it does meet the essential ingredient of
Sec. 34 of IPC, 1860.

Sec.34 of IPC says that, “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.”

Here all the elements of common intention are present in this present case.

 Criminal act done

Death of the deceased
 With common intension of A-1, A-2 and A-3
A-1, A-2 and A-3 had common intention as after giving birth to a girl child in September
2018 deceased was thrown out of the house to her parental home.
Later in December 2018, A-1 reached to deceased home and apologized her for all ill-
treatment and brought her back. A-1 behaviour towards deceased was changed.
There was a gap of 3 months which means that if he really loved her he will not wait for
3 months. So there is a chance of conspiracy between A-1, A-2 and A-3 during this time
period. And the behaviour of A-1 has been changed towards the deceased.
 Each person is liable
As the organo-phosphorous was purchased by A-2 from PW-1.

PW-2 heard cries of the deceased on the day she died

PW-3 and PW-4 smelt poisonous odour from the room and noticed bruises

16 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

PW-5 also smelt poison from the room, then PW-5 questioned A-1,he told not to interfere
in their personal life. When PW-5 entered the room A-1, A-2 and A-3 where present in
the room. As when the PW-5 asked the deceased what happened, she raised her hand
towards A-2 and A-3.

Deceased also informed the doctor that A-1, A-2 and A-3 together are responsible for her
condition as her dying declaration.

Case law:
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
It stated that dying declarations must be given voluntarily and is valid in court of law.

So there was common intention between A-1, A-2 and A-3.

17 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Learned Session Court may be pleased
to adjudge and declare that:

 The accused persons ,i.e; A-1, A-2 and A-3 are guilty underSections 498A, 304B and 34
of Indian Penal Code,1860.

The court may also be please to pass any other order, which this hon’ble court may deem fitin
the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Council for the complaint.

18 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites:

 https://indiankanoon.org
 https://www.scconline.com
 https://www.scribd.com
last accessed on 10/09/2019

E-Books:

 LEADING CASES ON DOWRY

BY:ANITA RAO
HRLN PUBLICATION(2011)

19 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT

 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, V.N.S.G.U., SURAT

20 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINT