BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT Of DELHI

In the matter of:-

State of NCT Delhi …………Petitioner

V/s

Pradeep & Others …………Respondent

Index of Authorities

List of cases

Websites referred

Books Referred

Statement of facts

1. Pradeep and Preeti belonged to Lucknow. On 23.10.2011 both married at New Delhi Farm
house as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. On Oct., 2011 they shifted to New Delhi along with Ram
(Father-in-law), Devi Singh (Mother-in-law) & Shiv Singh (Brother-in-law).

2. On 12.06.2012 Pradeep and Preeti were blessed with a baby boy (Shyam Singh).

3. On 01.09.2017 at about 04:30pm her father-in law heard her cries and rushed to 2 nd floor of
the house. He saw her burning. He tried to douse the fire. Preeti told him that her son was lying in
bathroom. He rushed to the bathroom and found that child was also burn. Preeti and her child were
moved to hospital.

4. At 6:40 pm her statement was recorded by doctor where she stated that she and her son
caught fire when she was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp which accidently fell down and the oil got
spilled over them and both get burnt.

5. On same night after receiving intimation her father Yogesh Kumar reached to hospital.

6. On the same night at 10:55 pm her child expired.

7. On 02.09.2017 Preeti’s father lodged a FIR against Pradeep, his father, his mother and
brother alleging that after her daughter’s marriage Pradeep and his family tortured her for not
meeting dowry demand of Rs. 10lakhs.

8. On 15th July, 2012 due to torture she left her matrimonial house and try to commit suicide.
She came back to house after the intervention of relatives.

9. On the said complaint, the police registered an FIR (183/17) against Pradeep and his
family for offences under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the initial investigation of police it was found that both Pradeep
and Preeti use to fight on petty issues but no angle of dowry came into the picture till now.

10. On 7th September, 2017 the applicants applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Judge, Saket, who, vide order dated 10th September, 2017, initially granted
anticipatory bail to them from arrest till the next date of hearing i.e. 18th September, 2017.

11. On 17th September, 2017, Preeti expired and offence under Section 304-B IPC came to
be added against the accused.

12. On 18th September, 2017, after hearing both sides and upon taking into consideration
the said statement and witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the anticipatory bail
granted to the appellants.

13. Aggrieved, the NCT Delhi the complainant filed petitions before the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Pradeep and his Family.

SUMBISSIONS MADE BY PETITIONER

1. Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home to the
matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new world
full of love in her groom’s house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname,
gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. Alas!
The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for Crl.
A.223.2003 dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterized to be out-laws for perpetrating
terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles
in every possible direction.

2. The Petitioner submitted that death of Preeti and her child by fire was not an accidental case
but it is an intentionally murder done by accused and his family. As per Ram Singh (Father-in-law of
Preeti) said that he heard the cries of Preeti and rushed to 2 nd Floor of the house and saw that Preeti
was covered with fire and he douse the fire. The Petitioner wants to say that this was just an
imaginary story made by Ram Singh and there is no proof of it.

3. In support of his allegation the Petitioner submitted that soon after their marriage there
have been some petty issues in between Pradeep and Preeti. The accused and his family ask the
decedent for the dowry demand of Rs. 10Lakhs when she refused it her husband fight with her and
her husband and his family members tortured her in various ways.

4. When the decedent’s capacity to bear the torture is gone she left her matrimonial house and
attempted suicide. The Petitioner has alleged the accused and his family has done cruelty with Preeti
and the cruelty has been defined in Section 498A of IPC which held as under:-

Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code

376
 [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.]

5. According to the said Section 498A of IPC cruelty means “any wilful conduct which is of such
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide” be punishable under Section 498A r/w
Section 34 of IPC.

6. The Petitioner further submitted that it has been admitted in the facts that accused has
some issues with the deceased which leads to compel the deceased to commit suicide. And this was
verified by the witnesses which have been relied upon in the FIR.

7. But due to intervention of relatives she returned her house but the accused would not stop
here they tried to kill her and on 01.09.2012 her father-in-law and others poured kerosene on her
the put fire but when they learnt that the child was with her and she started crying they douse the
fire to save the child and take them to the hospital.

8. Due to fear of being caught they threatened her not to take their name otherwise they kill
her child.

9. The petitioner also submits that when deceased father (Yogesh kumar) get intimation they
reached to the hospital and saw that both Preeti and Shyam were in serious condition. When they
ask about the incident from Preeti’s father-in-law he said that the incident caused accidently and
when it happened he was at the ground floor of the house.

10. But the deceased father has some doubts and he wants to saw her daughter. But when he
heard from doctor that Preeti has said in her statement that the incident caused accidently he saw
her and ask him and she said that her in- laws threatened her that if she said something against
them they killed her child. Due to threat she didn’t said the truth.

11. When Preeti and her father heard the news of the death of her child. Her father went to
Police station on 02.09.2017 to register a complaint against Pradeep and his family under Section
498A r/w Section 34 of IPC for torturing the deceased for dowry and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

12. The Petitioner also submitted that from the time of incident till the death of child neither
Pradeep nor his mother and brother were came to hospital to saw child and Preeti which shows that
they have a hand in this incident. This also raises questions that are these members put Preeti and
her child in fire?

13. The Petitioner said to the Hon'ble Court that the Pradeep and his family has also been
charged under Section 299 and 304 of IPC for Culpable homicide which held as under:-

Section 299 in the Indian Penal Code

299. Culpable homicide.—whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with
the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm,
treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

Section 304 in the Indian Penal Code

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits
culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for
life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

14. The accused has also been charged under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for
taking and demanding dowry of Rs. 10 Lakhs from Preeti and his family the said Section 3 and 4 held
as under:-

Section 3 & 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—1[
(1) ] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving
or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: —1[(1)] If any
person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking
of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the
amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]\:" Provided that the Court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years].] 5[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall
apply to, or in relation to,— 1[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,—"
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand
having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any
demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where
such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride,
such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having
regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents
are given.]

1[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from
the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be,
any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees: 2[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands,
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and
with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees\:" Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

15. The Petitioner also demands from the Hon'ble Court that accused and his family has also
charged under Section 304B of IPC for dowry death as it has been already proved by the Ld.
Petitioner that Pradeep and his family had tortured the deceased for dowry and killed her when she
had not fulfilled their demand. Therefore they had been charged under Section 304B of IPC which
has held as under:-

Section 304B in the Indian Penal Code

[304B. Dowry death.—
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death. 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).
(2) 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.]

16. The Petitioner also demands to charge accused and his family under Section 306 IPC to
compel Preeti to abet the commission of suicide. Section 304B of IPC held as under:-

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.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED AND HIS FAMILY IS JUSTIFIED?

ISSUE 2: WHETEHR THE DECEASED WAS BEING PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HARRESED BY THE
SAID ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE DEATH OF PREETI AND HER CHILD WAS ACCIDENTAL?

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE STATEMENT TOLD BY ACCUSED FATHER CORRECT?

WHETHER

Prayer

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

 The writ petition filed as maintainable,

 The constitutional sanction of an enactment has an overriding effect to an international
convention of which Indica is a signatory,
 The Juvenility should depend upon the nature of the offence committed and not on the
age,
 Ossification test should be used to determine the age of a juvenile in conflict with law.

And pass any such order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Moot Court Memorial (Petitioner)

Sections Charged: - Section 498A r/w 34 IPC; Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act; Section 304B
IPC

Facts of case

1. Pradeep and Preeti belonged to Lucknow. They got married in 23.10.2011 as per Hindu
rights and rituals at a farm house situated in New Delhi. Their marriage was arrange marriage. In
October, 2011 both shifted to New Delhi along with their parents Ram Singh (Father-in-law of
Preeti), Devi Singh(Mother-in-law of preeti) and Shiv Singh (Brother-in-law of Preeti). On 12.06.2012
Preeti gave birth to a baby boy named Shyam Singh.

2. On 01.09.2017 at about 04:30 pm Ram Singh heard the cries of Preeti and rushed to the 2 nd
Floor there he saw that Preeti was burning. He tries to douse the fire. Preeti told him that her son
was lying in the bathroom. He rushed to the bathroom and found that child also had burns. Both
were removed to the hospital. At about 06:40 pm doctor recorded the Preeti’s statement wherein
she stated that the she and her son caught fire when she was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp which
accidently fell down and the oil spilled over both of them and they got burnt.

3. On receiving the intimation Preeti’s father (Yogesh Kumar) reached to the hospital on the
same night. At about 10:55 pm Preeti’s child Shyam was expired. On 02.09.2017 Preeti’s father
lodged a complaint against Pradeep and his Family. In the complaint he inter alia alleged that after
the marriage of his daughter Pradeep and his family were torturing her for not meeting dowry
demand of Rs. 10Lakhs. On 15.07.2012 due to torture she left her matrimonial house and intending
to commit suicide. But due to intervention of relatives she returned back. On the said complaint, the
police registered FIR (183/17) against Pradeep and his family for offences under Section 498A read
with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the initial
investigation of police it was found that both Pradeep and Preeti use to fight on petty issues but no
angle of dowry came into the picture till now.

4. On 07.09.2017 the applicants applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions
Judge, Saket, who, vide order dated 10.09.2017, initially granted anticipatory bail to them from
arrest till the next date of hearing i.e. 18.09.2017. On 17.09.2017, Preeti expired and offence under
Section 304-B IPC came to be added against the accused. On 18.09.2017, after hearing both sides
and upon taking into consideration the said statement and witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge
confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.

5. Aggrieved, the NCT Delhi the complainant filed petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Pradeep and his Family.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
376
 [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.]

Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code

37
 [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.]

Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code

[304B. Dowry death.—
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to
have caused her death. 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).
(2) 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 3 & 4 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—1[
(1) ] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving
or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: —1[(1)] If any
person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking
of dowry, he shall be punishable 2[with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than 3[five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the
amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]\:" Provided that the Court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than 4[five years].] 5[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall
apply to, or in relation to,— 1[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,—"
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand
having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any
demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where
such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride,
such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having
regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents
are given.]

1[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from
the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be,
any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees: 2[4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands,
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and
with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees\:" Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

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 299 in the Indian Penal Code

299. Culpable homicide.—whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with
the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm,
treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

Section 304 in the Indian Penal Code

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits
culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for
life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

Grounds of arguments by Petitioner

6. Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home to the
matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there, with a hope that she will see a new world
full of love in her groom‟s house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname,
gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. Alas!
The alarming rise in the number of cases involving harassment to the newly wed girls for Crl.
A.223.2003 dowry shatters the dreams. In-laws are characterized to be out-laws for perpetrating
terrorism which destroys the matrimonial home. The terrorist is dowry, and it is spreading tentacles
in every possible direction.

7. I want to make allegations that the Preeti and her child were not burnt accidently it was a
murder which was committed by Pradeep and his family. It has been admitted by the investigating
officers that there were issues between Preeti and her husband and her in-laws. The fights between
them were related to the dowry which was made by her in-laws. When Preeti has not fulfilled their
demands they started torturing her. The torture was at that level that on 15.07.2012 she was forced
to leave her matrimonial house.

8. When she left the house her relatives advised her to return back to home and she returned
back to her matrimonial house. After her return her in-laws and husband were again torturing her
and threatened her that if she tries to leave the house they will harm or kill her and her child. On
01.09.2017 her in-laws put fire on her and her child.

9. As per Section 304B of IPC “where the death of women 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.”

10. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration)
Vs Laxman Kumar and others (AIR 1986 SC 250) was a case of bride burning wherein the trial court
accepted the prosecution case and considering it to be one of the atrocious dowry deaths, had
sentenced each of the respondents to death, namely, the husband, the mother-in- law and brother-
in-law. The High Court, however, acquitted the respondents of the charge of murder of one Sudha by
setting fire to her. On appeal, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.

11. In this case we deem it appropriate to consider the provisions contained in Section 113B of
the Evidence Act, which provides thus-

"113-B. 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 had 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."

12. In this case Pradeep and his family demanding for dowry after marriage when she was not
fulfilled their demand they tortured her due to which she left her matrimonial house on 12.09.2012.

13. The Petitioner reiterates the fact that as per police investigation there is nothing mentioned
that the fire was caused accidently. There were several questions raised such as:-

 That if the kerosene fell accidently while pouring the lamp then how it catches fire?
 That why she does such dangerous act with her child?
 That where were her husband and mother-in-law when fire caught her?
 That during the course of investigation the statement of neighbours has been taken or not?

14. Preeti’s father has also said that her daughter

15. During the course of investigation angle of fight between Preeti and her husband has come
which clearly indicates that after marriage there has been issues between both of them as a result of
which she left her house. Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC states that cases where there is
cruelty done by husband and relatives of husband of woman in relation to meet an unlawful demand
then such person shall be liable for punishment under the said Section.