TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 CASES REFERRED
 STATUTES
 BOOKS REFERRED
 WEBSITE

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES RAISED

SUMMARY OF PLEADING

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF

DOWRY?
2. WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?
3. WHETHER SURAJ’S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY
DEATH OF BABITA?
4. WHETHER OTHER RELATIVES, I.E, SISTER, BROTHER-IN-LAW ARE
PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

PRAYER

1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL-FORM
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Ed. Edition
DW Defense Witness
PW Prosecution Witness
Hon’ble Honorable
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
H.C. High Court
J. Justice
OR’s. Others
P&H Punjab & Haryana High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
Vs. Versus
Vol. Volume
U/S Under Section
U.O.I Union Of India
Pat Patna High Court

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED:-

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273

Ashok Goyal Vs. State 2011

Baijnath and ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016

Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors 2011

Kamesh Panjiyar Kamlesh Vs. State of Bihar

Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab

Kaushik Das Vs. the State of Tripura

Laxman Anaji Dhundale & Another vs State Of Maharashtra

Meka Ramaswami Vs. Dasri Mohan

Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009)

Premananda Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa

Sabitri Dei and others Vs. Sarat Chandra Rout and others

Satvir Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr (2001)

Shanti Vs. State of Haryana

State of U.P. Vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 3244

Sumunt Ojha Vs. State of Bihar (2009)

Thangappandian Vs. State

STATUTES:-

 The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act 51 of 1961)

3
BOOKS:-

 INDIAN PENAL CODE BY S.N. MISHRA

 EVIDENCE LAW BY BATUK LAL
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE BY R.V KELKAR

WEBSITES:-

https://www.section304-B.org.com

https://www.dowrydeath.cruelty.com

https://www.indiankanoon.caseondowrydeath.com

https://www.studocu.com/in/document

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this honorable
court. The petition invokes its jurisdiction under Section 177 read with section 209 of the
code of criminal procedure, 1973.

Section 177: ordinary place of inquiry and trial

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquiry into and trial by ta court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

Read with section 209: commitment of case to Court of Session when offence to triable
exclusively by it;

When in a case instructed on 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, after complying with the provisions of section
207 or sec 208, as the case may be, the case to the court of session, and subject to the
provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment
has been made; (b) subject to the provisions to this code relating to bail, remand the accused
to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to that court the record of the
case and the documents and article, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) notify
the public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the court of sessions.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Babita is a 21 years old girl who completed her LLB degree from B.O.S.S.U (Bawa Oswal
South University) in 2012. Babita’s parents were looking for a suitable match for quite some
time and were enthusiastic when Babita’s marriage was fixed on 25.03.2013 and the marriage
took place on 25.04.2013in Loni Ghaziabad.

2. The Groom’s name is Suraj, he is young charming person and has a plan to start his own
gym. Suraj’s father is a business tycoon with high political influence in the city. Babita and
Suraj’s marriage was a very grant affair in the city of Delhi. Guests and relatives from all
around the nation came to bless the happy couple. After getting married, Babita went to her
in-law’s house in Mandoli, Delhi.

3. At the time of marriage, Babita’s father gave expensive car, cloths, jewelry utensils
furniture and other household things as a dowry. And also cash of Rs. 5 crore to his son in
law.

4. Suraj is a jeweler, and he has jewelry shop in Karol Bagh New Delhi.

5. A few days later when Babita came to her father’s house for a ceremony she was silent and
had marks of assault on her body when Babita’s mother asked her about the injuries she told
her that her in-laws were demanding cash and when she refuse they beat her a lot. After this
incident Babita took the cash and when back to her husband’s house. This incident happened
to be reported by Babita to her parents frequently and continue to happen.

6. On 7th of March 2020 Suraj called his mother in law to inform Babita had committed
suicide by hanging herself.

7. When Babita’s parents reach her in laws home the police were present there and doing
their investigation therefore Babita’s mother told the police official that Babita can never
commit suicide and also narrated the incidence of assault committed against Babita for
dowry.

8. The police lodged an FIR against Babita’s husband Suraj and the in-law’s u/s 304B, 498A
and 306 IPC r/w sec 3-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police commenced an
investigation, recording statements from all possible witnesses involved in the case.

6
 ISSUED RAISED

ISSUE 1.

WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF

DOWRY?

ISSUE 2.

WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

ISSUE 3.

WEATHER SURAJ'S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEAD OF

BABITA?

ISSUE 4.

WEATHER OTHER RELATIVES I.E. SISTERS, BOTHER-IN-LAW ARE PUNISHABLE

FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE 1.

WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF

DOWRY?

No, it cannot be said that Babita was subjected to her husband and demand of dowry.
Allegations of demands of dowry by the prosecution have not been proved. None of the
witnesses gave the relevant evidences to prove the dowry demands. The essential ingredients
required to attract 304-B of IPC have not been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under
section 498-A of IPC has not been proved in the absence of evidences to prove demands of
dowry. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the allegations about demands
for dowry that led to mental harassment are vague and unsubstantiated considering there are
no specific incidents that have been quoted and these allegations have not even been
supported by material witnesses. It is well established from the facts of the instant case that
there were no such frequent quarrels within the family, thereafter the deceased committed
suicide. So, there is no reliable evidence to hold that Babita was being harassed or had
undergone cruelty or there was presence of any dowry demands.

ISSUE 2.

WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

No, Suraj is not punishable for the dowry of Babita. Section 304b of IPC states that:

“(1) where the death of a woman is caused by any bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is so on that soon before
her death she was subjected to cure tree or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for or in connection with any demand of, such that shall be called as “dowry death”
and her husband or relative shall be deemed to have cause her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death is punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

ISSUE 3.

WEATHER SURAJ'S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWEY DEATH OF

BABITA?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that Suraj's parents are not punishable
for the dowry death of Babita. There is also no credible evidence of any common intention of
Suraj parents to cause the death of Babita the essential ingredients required to attract 304-B
of IPC have not been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of IPC has
not been proved in the absence of evidences to prove demands of dowry. There was no
common intention for Babita's death as under section 34 IPC, act done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention. "To invoke Section 34 successfully, it must be shown that
the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in the

8
furtherance of the common intention of all; if it is shown, then liability at the crime may be
imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.
In the case of Laxman Anaji Dhundale & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April,
2007.that in order to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to
establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of
minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the
said Section 34. In the present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
there was such a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in
question. There were no direct eyewitnesses against the accused-appellant, in this case in the
of Kaushik Das v. the State of Tripura (2008) lays down another instance where the accused
was allowed to be released. Because there were no direct eyewitnesses against the accused-
appellant in this case. The question was whether the accused-appellant might be convicted
under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code given the aforementioned facts and
circumstances. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption that the
Court may draw in specific situations, has taken care of such a problem. To use Section 113B
of the Evidence Act, when the question is whether a person has committed the death of a
woman and it is shown that such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by such
person shortly before her death for, or in connection with, any dowry demand, the Court shall
presume that such person had misused the dowry death of his wife. Dowry death has the
same meaning in this provision as it does in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. This
Section's application is contingent on the occurrence of specified facts. First and foremost, it
must be demonstrated that the woman was exposed to abuse or harassment by someone
shortly before her death, for or in connection with any dowry demand. In light of the facts
and circumstances of this case, as well as the evidence presented, the Court was not
convinced that:

 The Appellant's wife died of a bone injury in unusual circumstances within seven
years of her marriage, and
 She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband accused-appellant in
connection with a dowry demand.

When suspicion emerges the accusing finger might be directed at the individual who was
present at the time and location of occurrence. Because the accused-appellant was present at
the time of the accident, there is no valid assumption that he was responsible for it, implying
that he committed the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the case
is considered an accident or an instance of a woman's unnatural death, the accused-appellant
cannot be found guilty of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and no
presumption can be established against him under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Hence,
no case was made out against the accused. Thus, one of the essential ingredients, amongst
others, in both the provisions i.e. Sections 304-B and 113-B is that the woman concerned
must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment 'for, or in
connection with, the demand for dowry.' There must be materials to show that soon before
her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out

9
the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death
occurring otherwise. In this case there are no such materials to show as a proof.

ISSUE 4

WEATHER OTHER RELATIVES I.E. SISTERS, BOTHER-IN-LAW ARE PUNISHABLE

FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that Suraj's other relative sister,
brother-in-law are not punishable for the dowry death of ingredients required to attract 304-B
of IPC have not been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of IPC has
not been proved in the absence of evidences to prove demands of dowry. Abetment of suicide
under section 306 has not been proved in the absence of evidence to prove. In the casc of
Laxman Anaji Dhundale & Another vs State f Maharashtra on 4 April, 2007 that in order to
bring home the charge of common intention the Prosecution has to establish by evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34. In the
present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan
or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. No, other
relatives i.e., sisters, brothers-in -law are not punishable for the death of Babita because if we
are to talk about the relatives especially accused sister and brother in-law than it is presented
by the I.0 they are the resident of Karol Bagh, New Delhi. As the Indian custom is concerned
than it is very much noticeable that when a woman is married than the husband's house is
considered to be her own house and even if the relatives were present than the exact time and
the date has not been mentioned which means that the sister and her husband were in their
own resident at Karol Bagh and not at the place of incident. It is humbly submitted before this
Hon' ble Court that for a married woman it is quite obvious to visit her parent's home with an
advance information but in the incident only the mother-in-law and accused were present
therefore the relatives are not responsible for the death or rather suicide of 3abita. According
to the report of 2015, every year more than 10,000 complaints of dowry harassment are found
to be false. Given that close to 90,000 to 1 lakh cases are investigated every year, the figure
makes it one of the most abused laws in the country 16. In some cases, individuals have used
this provision for personal vendettas or to extort money. similarly, it can be put forth that
Babita alleging that her in-laws were the one asking for money but on the contrary, she was
using it as her own expenses and was trying to extort the money from her parents as her in-
laws were afraid that she must be doing something with the money which is putting her
mental health in danger. In the case the name of the sister was Kanak and her husband was
Kamal and as per the statement of Kanak given to the I.O. and even the sister of the accused
has also personally witnessed Babita's mental instability wherein Babita used to sweep the
floor time and again during the time of incident she was not present and the information
regarding the suicide was given by given to her, Kanak and Kamal have been falsely
implicated in this case. And during the time of incident, they were at Shahdara on the call of
Kamal's father. There was no proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty based on
dowry demand and the concerned death by Kanak and Kamal.

10
In the case of Sabitri Dei and others v. Sarat Chandra Rout and others 17 the apex court
quashed the order given by the competent Sessions Court and convicted the husband and his
relative under section 498A/section 304B of the I.P.C. and under section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Similarly, in the case of Premananda Sahoo v. State of Orissa l8, the criminal appeal was
directed against the judgment given by competent Sessions Court. In another case of Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab 19 -it was held that in cases related to demand of dowry, general and
vague allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to prosecute the other relatives of
the husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with the family affairs of the
complainant. It was observed that in order to prosecute the other relatives in a dowry case
there must be a specific allegation against them. The Court also observed that it would not be
correct to compel the applicants who are the near relatives of accused husband to face the
agony of criminal prosecution on vague allegation.

11
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE.1
WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF
DOWRY?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that the deceased was never subjected
to any harassment and demand of dowry, and the accused are not guilty under section 498A
of IPC.

Section 498A states that “Husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty”.

No, Babita was not subjected to any harassment and demand of dowry. And there has been no
demand from the Suraj family for the dowry from the family of Babita’s. As Suraj he himself
is a jeweler and he has his own jewelry shop as well as his father is a business tycoon
therefore there is no need for any such demand for dowry. As mentioned Suraj belongs to a
well the family. It is humbly submitted that the presumption under section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be raised in the present case. It is submitted that a presumption
under section 113A of the Act is a discretionary one and given the facts and circumstances of
this case it would not be appropriate to raise it. It is alternatively submitted that even if it is
raised, such presumption is not irrefutable. The accused can rebut the presumption by
adducing proper evidence and averments. In Satvir Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab and
Anr (2001), the Supreme Court declared that in dowry death cases, the conditions of
harassment and cruelty to the victim must be shown soon before her death. Prosecution has
not put any evidence on record that would incriminate Suraj in any kind of harassment or
dowry demands other than oral testimony of Babita’s Father. Also we have seen earlier in this
argument that particular oral testimony suffers from serious flaw and has been rendered non-
trustworthy because of vital omissions of dowry demands from any of other witnesses. In this
case prosecution has not been provided any successful evidence against these two to suggest
that 1) these two were involvement in any kind of harassment or cruelty 2) there was any
dowry demand made by these two. Hence these two are liable to be acquitted from charges of
498(a) and 304 (b) There was no evidence that the husband made a demand or that he treated
his wife cruelly or harassed her, whereas the only piece of evidence that has come on record
is the statement made by the deceased woman’s Parents, that a demand was made by the
deceased woman’s in-law just prior to the occurrence, which is doubted for the reasons stated
in the order. If a dowry demand is made, it is assumed that the demand would be relayed to
the person from whom the dowry is expected, i.e. the woman’s father or guardian. In this
case, no such communication was made to the father. In the case of Sumunt Ojha v. State of
Bihar (2009), there will no communication between the father of the deceased with the in
laws and it could not be said that there was a demand for a dowry unless there is any kind of
communication between the person who demands and the persons who fulfills the demand.
Therefore the honorable code held that; the appellants were wrongfully convicted under the
Indian Penal Code Section 304B. There must also be a conviction under Section 498A of the

12
Indian Penal Code to be convicted under Section 304B. Allegations of demands of dowry by
the prosecution have not been proved. None of the witnesses gave the relevant evidences to
prove the dowry demands. The essential ingredients required to attract 304-B of IPC have not
been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of IPC has not been proved in
the absence of evidences to prove demands of dowry. It is humbly submitted before this
Hon’ble Court that the allegations about demands for dowry that led to mental harassment are
vague and unsubstantiated considering there are no specific incidents that have been quoted
and these allegations have not even been supported by material witnesses. It is well
established from the facts of the instant case that there were no such frequent quarrels within
the family, thereafter the deceased committed suicide. So, there is no reliable evidence to
hold that Babita was being harassed or had undergone cruelty or there was presence of any
dowry demands. It Is danger to assume that suicide of all marries females is because of
dowry harassment by husband and his family. If that was the case how we would explain the
numbers which say that among the suicides of married persons there are three (married) male
suicides for every single (married) female suicide. [NCRB data 2015: Of the 86,808 married
persons who committed suicides in 2015, 64,534 (74%) were men, 26% women.]. If suicide
is always result of harassment from spouse, should we assume that in our country females are
three times more likely to harass their spouses fatally than males. In the case of Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273,1 the Supreme Court had held:” The simplest
way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite
number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters
living abroad for decades are arrested.” In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) SCC 32442, this
Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held: “In all criminal cases,
normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors
of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition
such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a
contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other
witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot
be safe to rely upon.

In Baijnath and ors v State of Madhya Pradesh, A two judge bench of the SC, Justice Dipak
Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy has reiterated that one of the essential ingredients of dowry
death under section 304-B of the IPC is that the accused must have subjected the woman to
cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient
has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the court will
presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act. The court also held that the factum of unnatural death in the
matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage, therefore, is thus ipso facto
not sufficient to bring home the charge under sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC against
them.

1
AIR 2014 SCC 273
2
AIR 2011 SCC 3244

13
In Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2011]
supreme court held that “In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root
of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its
opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions
inspire confidence. It was also observed that human sensitivity of each individual differs from
person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different
people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of
suicide had taken place in the family. In case of Ashok Goyal v. State the allegation against
the Appellant was only supported by the statement of one of the witnesses (sister of the
deceased) wherein it was stated that “whenever her sister used to meet her she complained
about the harassment meted out to her by all the accused persons”. The court observed that
the statement was very vague and general in nature. There was no specific allegation against
the Appellant. The kind of harassment meted out to the deceased was also not explained. The
other allegations that she was harassed taunted were too general in nature. Neither any
specific date of harassment nor the kind of harassment or how she was treated badly had been
stated by the witnesses.

In case of Thangappandian Vs. State, it was observed that- “cruelty” is stated to be the
willful conduct, which is of such nature as is likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
Mere torture or ill-treatment as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 3 or demand for dowry or for
property is not cruelty. A reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the
suicide of the woman in order to make good the offence of cruelty. So, there is no reliable
evidence to hold that Babita was being harassed or had undergone cruelty or there was
presence of any dowry demands. So, the first, third and fourth ingredients are also not
fulfilled. It is humbly submitted that the presumption under section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be raised in the present case. It is submitted that a presumption
under section 113A of the Act is a discretionary one and given the facts and circumstances of
this case it would not be appropriate to raise it. It is alternatively submitted that even if it is
raised, such presumption is not irrefutable. The accused can rebut the presumption by
adducing proper evidence and averments.

14
 ISSUE.2
WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that the Suraj is not punishable for the
dowry death of Babita under section 304 b of IPC. Section 304b of IPC states that:

“(1) where the death of a woman is caused by any bones or bodily injuries or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage and it is so on that
soon before her death she was subjected to cure tree or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of, such that shall be called as
“dowry death” and her husband or relative shall be deemed to have cause her death.

(2) whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” Following are
the essential ingredients have been laid by the Supreme Court in Shanti v State of Haryana.3

(i) The death of a woman must have been caused by bones or bodily injury or otherwise than
under normal circumstances;

(ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by
her husband or any relatives of her husband;

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.

So, the first, third and fourth ingredients are also not fulfilled.

It is most respectfully submitted before the court that firstly the parents of deceased are also
to be held guilty under 304b of IPC. According to dowry prohibition act section 3 and Indian
penal Code section 498A. Demand of dowry-in case in which complaint was filed by the
wife under section 498 IPC -it was also stated that her in-laws demanded dowry before the
marriage which was made by her parents at the time of marriage which is same as to the
given facts. It was held that where these kinds of allegations were made the police should
immediately register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act against the parents of complainant
as well. At the time of marriage, Babita’s father gave expensive car, cloths, jewelry, utensils
furniture and other household items, never demanded by the Suraj family it was all provided
by the Babita’s father as a love for his daughter.

3
(1991) scc 371

15
In Meka Ramaswami v Dasri Mohan4 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “there was no proof
of any demands hence the fact that “the deceased died within 7 years of marriage can’t be the
reason for conviction of the accused persons. It is respectfully submitted that the accused are
not guilty for the death of deceased (Babita) under304b IPC. It was an accidental death for
which the respondents are not guilty. The circumstances beyond reasonable doubt establish
that the deceased committed Suicide. The accused i.e. her husband and in-laws were not
responsible. It is respectfully submitted that the accused were not guilty of abetting the
suicide of deceased under Section 306. The deceased committed suicides out of her own will
due to the fact that unstable mental issues and her mental health.

Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh v. State of Bihar (2005) In this case, the Supreme Court stated
the key ingredients of dowry death (Section 304B, IPC) as follows:

• A woman’s death should be caused by burns, physical harm, or some other unusual event.

• She should have died during the first seven years of her marriage.

• Her husband or a relative of her husband must have treated her cruelly or harassed her.

• Such cruelty or harassment should be in response to or in conjunction with a dowry

demand.

• It must be proven that the woman was subjected to such brutality or harassment shortly
before her death.

In Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), the woman committed suicide herself after the
trial court acquitted her of charges that her husband and in-laws sought a large dowry. The
High Court intervened in the verdict, and she committed suicide within seven years of their
marriage. The deceased informed her parents about the dowry demand; otherwise, her in-laws
would refuse to let her enter their house. The person who finalized the marriage never
confirmed any dowry demand. There was never any money exchanged. There was no
evidence of dowry demand, and the appellant’s father submitted a notification of his son’s
death shortly after it occurred. Simply stating that something must have occurred that caused
the dead to commit suicide is not a legitimate plea, and the conviction was overturned.

The case of Kaushik Das v. the State of Tripura (2008) lays down another instance where
the accused was allowed to be released. Because there were no direct eyewitnesses against
the accused-appellant in this case, the question was whether the accused-appellant might be
convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code given the aforementioned facts and
circumstances. Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption that the
Court may draw in specific situations, has taken care of such a problem.

4
AIR 1998 SCC 7742

16
 ISSUE.3
WHETHER SURAJ’S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF
BABITA?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that Suraj's parents are not punishable
for the dowry death of Babita. There is also no credible evidence of any common intention of
Suraj parents to cause the death of Babita the essential ingredients required to attract 304-B
of IPC have not been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of IPC has
not been proved in the absence of evidences to prove demands of dowry. There was no
common intention for Babita's death as under section 34 IPC, act done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention. "To invoke Section 34 successfully, it must be shown that
the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in the
furtherance of the common intention of all; if it is shown, then liability at the crime may be
imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

In the case of Laxman Anaji Dhundale & Another vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April,
2007.that in order to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to
establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of
minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the
said Section 34. In the present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
there was such a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in
question. There were no direct eyewitnesses against the accused-appellant, in this case in the
of Kaushik Das v. the State of Tripura (2008) lays down another instance where the accused
was allowed to be released.

Because there were no direct eyewitnesses against the accused-appellant in this case. The
question was whether the accused-appellant might be convicted under Section 304 B of the
Indian Penal Code given the aforementioned facts and circumstances. Section 113B of the
Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption that the Court may draw in specific situations,
has taken care of such a problem. To use Section 113B of the Evidence Act, when the
question is whether a person has committed the death of a woman and it is shown that such
woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by such person shortly before her death for, or
in connection with, any dowry demand, the Court shall presume that such person had misused
the dowry death of his wife. Dowry death has the same meaning in this provision as it does in
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. This Section's application is contingent on the
occurrence of specified facts. First and foremost, it must be demonstrated that the woman was
exposed to abuse or harassment by someone shortly before her death, for or in connection
with any dowry demand.

17
 In light of the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the evidence presented, the
Court was not convinced that:

 The Appellant's wife died of a bone injury in unusual circumstances within seven
years of her marriage, and
 She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband accused-appellant in
connection with a dowry demand.

When suspicion emerges the accusing finger might be directed at the individual who was
present at the time and location of occurrence. Because the accused-appellant was present at
the time of the accident, there is no valid assumption that he was responsible for it, implying
that he committed the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the case
is considered an accident or an instance of a woman's unnatural death, the accused-appellant
cannot be found guilty of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, and no
presumption can be established against him under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Hence,
no case was made out against the accused. Thus, one of the essential ingredients, amongst
others, in both the provisions i.e. Sections 304-B and 113-B is that the woman concerned
must have been 'soon before her death' subjected to cruelty or harassment 'for, or in
connection with, the demand for dowry.' There must be materials to show that soon before
her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out
the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death
occurring otherwise. In this case there are no such materials to show as a proof.

18
 ISSUE.4

WEATHER OTHER RELATIVES THAT I.E. SISTERS, BOTHER-IN-LAW ARE

PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is respectfully submitted before the honorable court that Suraj's other relative sister,
brother-in-law are not punishable for the dowry death of ingredients required to attract 304-B
of IPC have not been fulfilled. The cruelty and harassment under section 498-A of IPC has
not been proved in the absence of evidences to prove demands of dowry. Abetment of suicide
under section 306 has not been proved in the absence of evidence to prove. In the casc of
Laxman Anaji Dhundale & Another vs State f Maharashtra on 4 April, 2007 that in order to
bring home the charge of common intention the Prosecution has to establish by evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused
persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34. In the
present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan
or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. No, other
relatives i.e., sisters, brothers-in -law are not punishable for the death of Babita because if we
are to talk about the relatives especially accused sister and brother in-law than it is presented
by the I.0 they are the resident of Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

As the Indian custom is concerned than it is very much noticeable that when a woman is
married than the husband's house is considered to be her own house and even if the relatives
were present than the exact time and the date has not been mentioned which means that the
sister and her husband were in their own resident at Karol Bagh and not at the place of
incident. It is humbly submitted before this Hon' ble Court that for a married woman it is
quite obvious to visit her parent's home with an advance information but in the incident only
the mother-in-law and accused were present therefore the relatives are not responsible for the
death or rather suicide of 3abita.

According to the report of 2015, every year more than 10,000 complaints of dowry
harassment are found to be false. Given that close to 90,000 to 1 lakh cases are investigated
every year, the figure makes it one of the most abused laws in the country 16. In some cases,
individuals have used this provision for personal vendettas or to extort money. similarly, it
can be put forth that Babita alleging that her in-laws were the one asking for money but on
the contrary, she was using it as her own expenses and was trying to extort the money from
her parents as her in-laws were afraid that she must be doing something with the money
which is putting her mental health in danger. In the case the name of the sister was Kanak and
her husband was Kamal and as per the statement of Kanak given to the I.O. and even the
sister of the accused has also personally witnessed Babita's mental instability wherein Babita
used to sweep the floor time and again during the time of incident she was not present and the
information regarding the suicide was given by given to her, Kanak and Kamal have been
falsely implicated in this case. And during the time of incident, they were at Shahdara on the
call of Kamal's father. There was no proximate and live link between the effects of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the concerned death by Kanak and Kamal.

19
In the case of Sabitri Dei and others v. Sarat Chandra Rout and others 17 the apex court
quashed the order given by the competent Sessions Court and convicted the husband and his
relative under section 498A/section 304B of the I.P.C. and under section 4 of the D.P. Act.
Similarly, in the case of Premananda Sahoo v. State of Orissa l8, the criminal appeal was
directed against the judgment given by competent Sessions Court. In another case of Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab 19 -it was held that in cases related to demand of dowry, general and
vague allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to prosecute the other relatives of
the husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with the family affairs of the
complainant. It was observed that in order to prosecute the other relatives in a dowry case
there must be a specific allegation against them. The Court also observed that it would not be
correct to compel the applicants who are the near relatives of accused husband to face the
agony of criminal prosecution on vague allegation.

20
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, It is humbly prayed before the Hon‘ble Court to adjudge and declare:

1. That the accused and his family are not guilty of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.

2. That the accused and his family are not guilty of mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

3. That the accused and his family are not guilty of abetting the suicide of deceased under
Section 306 IPC.

4. That the accused be acquitted of above mentioned offenses.

And any other relief that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

Savya Chettri

Counsel for Defendant

21