The Hon'Able District Court, Delhi: Before

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16

0|Page

Before

THE HON’ABLE DISTRICT COURT, DELHI


CIVIL APPEAL NO. : xxx

BETWEEN

THE LEENA’S
PARENTS…………..…………………………………PLAINTIFF

V.

MR. MANOJ AND FAMILY…………………………………. DEFENDANT

CASE FILED UNDER SECTION 304B, 306, 498A READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


1|Page

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


2|Page

TABLE OF CONTENT

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………….. 2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………… 3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………. 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………... 6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES…..……………………………………… 7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………….. 8
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………….. 10
 PRAYER……………………………………….…………………..… 14

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


3|Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Art. : Article

V. : Versus

Ex- : Example

IPC : Indian Penal Code

Sec : Sections

App : Appellant

Res : Respondent

IEA : Indian Evidence Act

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


4|Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Sec. 304B in The Indian Penal Code


304B. Dowry death.—

a. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have
the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

b. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code


306. Abetment of suicide.—

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code


498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

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 wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


5|Page

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code


34. 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.

Cases Cited

 Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors


 Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


6|Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners approach the Honorable District Court of Delhi under Section 177 in The Code
Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

“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.”

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


7|Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. The deceased was married to manoj on 15th of January, 2004

II. A sum and certain art. were promised to be given in the marriage by the way of dowry.
All those terms were fulfilled by The deceased’s parents.

III. The deceased lived with her husband after marriage in a joint family, consisting of her
parents-in-law, elder brother of Manoj by name Rakesh and his wife Jyoti, and Manoj’s
younger unmarried sister Sadhana.

IV. After about six months, all the in-laws of The deceased and her husband, started ill-
treating her by demanding huge sum of money from her parental family claiming that all
the terms of the promised dowry had been fulfilled. The deceased used to report this to
her parents, her brother and other relatives, but they showed their inability to fulfill those
additional demands and advised her to stay with her husband, hoping that better days
would come.

V. The ill treatment continued for few more years.

VI. On the 28th February, 2007, The deceased was found to have sustained burn injuries in
the kitchen of her husband’s house.

VII. With almost 80% burns, she was hospitalized immediately, where she survived for 2 days
and died on 30th February, 2007.

VIII. While in hospital, her dying declaration was recorded by a magistrate on the 28 th
February,2007 morning. On that day afternoon, another dying declaration of The
deceased was recorded by a magistrate in, which she claimed that getting fed up with ill-
treatment at the hands of her husband and his relatives, she set herself on fire.

IX. After the deaths of The deceased, her father lodged a complaint with the police alleging
ill treatment on account of ill legal demand of dowry, abetment of suicide and dowry
death against Manoj, his parents, Rakesh, Jyoti, and Sadhana.

X. The police registered offences under sections 304B, 306, 498A read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and prosecuted all the mentioned persons.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


8|Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:
 WHETHER OR NOT THE DECEASED WAS ILL-TREATED BY
MANOJ AND HIS FAMILY UNDER SECTION 498A AND 34 OF IPC?

ISSUE 2:
 WHETHER THE DEATH WAS A SUICIDE OR AN ACCIDENT?

ISSUE 3:
 WHETHER OR NOT, THE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY FOR DOWRY
DEATH UNDER SECTION 304B OF IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


9|Page

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS


• WHETHER OR NOT THE DECEASED WAS ILL-TREATED BY
MANOJ AND HIS FAMILY UNDER THE SECTIONS 498A AND 34 OF IPC?
The Present case is a clear case of Dowry death. As per the facts the deceased who was married
to Manoj was ill-treated by her in-laws which resulted in the death of Leena (the Deceased).

It is crystal clear that the deceased was treated cruelly by her in laws who demanded dowry in
the form of huge amount of money.

This is also clear from the fact as deceased used to report the facts of ill treatment to her parents
who could not full fill the demands of accused family due to lack of money and unstable
economic problems.

Thus as per the above mentioned facts it can be concluded that deceased was ill treated by the
accused and his family.

• WHETHER THE DEATH WAS A SUICIDE OR AN ACCIDENT?


The death was a suicide as per the facts the deceased was ill-treated by the accused family. she
accepted that she was frustrated and decided to commit suicide. From the fact we can say that
she was started to be ill-treated on the demands of dowry after the six months of marriage. When
her parents were not able to full fill the demands, accused and his family started misbehaving.
This continued for about 3 years and finally on 28th march 1997 deceased committed suicide.

And there were no evidence to prove that the deceased died due to an accident.

The proof of her committing suicide is the testimony she gave on her death bed to the magistrate,
which was recorded on 29th march 1997 in which she clearly stated that she committed suicide
because of the ill treatment by the family of the accused and she could not take it anymore.

Thus without any doubt, it can be concluded by referring above facts and the arguments that this
was a suicide.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


10 | P a g e

• WHETHER OR NOT, ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR DOWRY DEATH


UNDER SECTION 304B OF IPC.
Accused and his family is guilty under the section 304B which defines dowry death.

The requirement of dowry death stated under the same is fulfilled in this case because, as per the
facts, The deceased died due to bodily injury and burns within seven years of her marriage and
was subjected to cruelty before her death. Such death is called ‘dowry death’ under the provision
of the section 304B of IPC.

Therefore we can say, this was a dowry death, and the accused should be held guilty and
punished for the same.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


11 | P a g e

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

 WHETHER OR NOT THE DECEASED WAS ILL-TREATED BY


MANOJ’S FAMILY?
The deceased was ill-treated by the accused and his family. This can be stated, as per the facts-

a) The deceased’s family was not able to fulfill the demands of additional dowry made by
the accused after the period of six months from the date of the deceased’s marriage.
b) The deceased’s in-laws started harassing her and ill-treating her, which she used to
continuously report to her parents, brothers and other relatives.

Thus, the accused is liable according to the section 498A of IPC, which states –

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— 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 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.

Because the facts of the present case states that, Manoj and his family used to ill-treat the
deceased which forced the deceased to commit suicide. The same could be concluded as The
deceased gave her dying declaration to the magistrate on 30th march 1997, in the hospital which
stated that the accused ill-treated her within six months of her marriage in demand of additional
dowry. Since her parents were not able to fulfill the demands due to their economic conditions,
Manoj and his family kept torturing her which frustrated her which resulted in her deciding to
end all the misery as well as her life.

Since, this harassment and conduct was related towards fulfillment of the demands of dowry, we
can accuse Manoj and his family subjecting The deceased to cruelty under the section 498A of
IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


12 | P a g e

The accused can also be found guilty under the section 34 of Indian Penal Code which says-

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

According to the declaration made by The deceased on her death bed, she stated that she was ill-
treated by Manoj and his family with a common intention to get the demands fulfilled, which
makes them liable under the section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The case laws which supports this argument is –

Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana1 in which the Urmil (deceased) and appellant No.1
were married on 29th May, 1985. Appellant No.1 was working at Lucknow and had later shifted
to Sonepat (Haryana). According to the prosecution case, within a few days of the marriage
Urmil returned home and complained regarding demands of dowry for a refrigerator, scooter etc.
by appellants. These demands were reiterated on subsequent visits. On account of non-
fulfilment of these demands, the deceased was allegedly tortured and harassed. These alleged
actions ultimately contributed towards a suicidal death. It is not in dispute that she died of burn
injuries on 18th May, 1987.

Honorable judge A.P. Mishra gave the judgment that –

“For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow the appeal. Convictions and sentences of appellant
No.1 are maintained but the convictions and sentences of the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are set aside.
Accordingly, appellant No.1, namely Pawan Kumar is sentenced to 7 years' rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine for further rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months under Sec tion 304-B IPC, 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Rs 200/-, in default payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, under
Section 306 IPC, and sentence for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine for Rs.200/-,
and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section
498-A IPC”

 WHETHER THE DEATH WAS A SUICIDE OR AN ACCIDENT?


The deceased committed suicide and according to sec. 113B of IEA, 1872 we can conclude it as
dowry death because this sec. says-

1
1998, Cr. L.J., 1144
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
13 | P a g e

Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been
subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.—For
the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of
the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860).

And according to the facts mentioned in the present case, the deceased committed suicide after 3
years of her marriage, as she was subjected to the cruelty and harassment in connection with the
demand of dowry which is proved by her dying declaration, therefore we can assume that it was
a dowry death.

In her dying declaration on 30th march 1997, she clearly stated that she attempted to commit
suicide, which is a big evidence that it was not an accident, in fact there is no proof that this
incident was an accident.

 WHETHER OR NOT, ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR DOWRY DEATH


UNDER SECTION 304B OF IPC.
Dowry death is defined under the section 304B of IPC as—

a. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death
shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have
the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

b. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

And as per the facts in the present case, She was subjected to cruelty, harassment by her
husband and his family due to un-fulfillment of the demands made by Manoj and his family. The
proof of such ill-treatment is that she continuously reported it to her parents, her brothers and
few other relatives. The cruelty started about six months of her marriage and continued for more
than three years, that is when she was frustrated and could not take it anymore (mentally and
physically) and finally decided to put an end to all of this.
The deceased’s body was found in a state of 90% burnt injuries on 28th March, 1997. On the
same day she gave a declaration claiming that being fed up with ill-treatment at the hands of her
husband and his relatives, she set herself on fire.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


14 | P a g e

The Case which supports this argument is Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors in which the
judgment was made by G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi, & Shivaraj V. Patil that-
“Under the circumstances the present appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the judgment of
the High Court in so far as it relates to respondent No.2, namely, Rakesh Kumar, the husband of
the deceased and confirmed so far as it relates to other accused persons. The judgment of the
Trial Court regarding conviction of Shri Rakesh Kumar under Section 304B is upheld but the
sentence is reduced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. His conviction under Section 306 is
also upheld but his sentence is reduced to five years besides paying a fine as imposed by the
Trial Court. In default of payment of fine the respondent No.2 shall suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month more. Confirming his conviction under Section 498A IPC, the
respondent No.2 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine he will further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The bail bonds of respondent No.2,
who is on bail, are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence passed on
him.”

All the above mentioned facts points out towards the affirmation that this death can be termed as
‘dowry death’ and the accused shall be punished under the section 304B of IPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF


15 | P a g e

PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

A. Punish all the accused person under the sections 304B, 306, 498A along with section 34
of IPC.
B. Pass any other order(s) that this court thinks fit in the facts of the case.

Petitioner

…………………

THROUGH

Counsel

………………...

DELHI

Date:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

You might also like