TEAM CODE [A05]

1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY, SOLAN.

BEFORE

THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI, INDIA.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL NO. ****/2017,

UNDER SECTION 304B & 498A, IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

IN THE MATTERS OF

MR. RAHUL SHARMA AND ANR..............................................................................APPELLANTS

V.

STATE AND ORS...................................................................................................RESPONDENTS

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS-

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................3

2. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................4

2.1 INDIAN CASES...........................................................................................................4

2.2 FOREIGN CASES.......................................................................................................5

2.3 STATUES...................................................................................................................5

2.4 CONSTITUTIONS REFERRED......................................................................................6

2.4 BOOKS REFERRED...................................................................................................6

2.5 DICTIONARIES REFERRED.......................................................................................6

2.6 WEBSITES REFERRED .............................................................................................6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS.........................................................................................7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................8

5. ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................................................10

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................11

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................12

7.1 THAT THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF

DOWRY DEATH .....................................................................................................12

7.2 THAT THE ACTS OF IN-LAWS DO NOT AMOUNT TO CRUELTY UNDER SECTION

498A, IPC.............................................................................................................18

7.3 THAT THERE WAS NO DEMAND OF DOWRY AS TO ATTRACT CONVICTION

UNDER SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961....................................23

8. PRAYER.............................................................................................................................26

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 2

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS-

Abbreviation Explanation

Paragraph

Section

& And

A.C. Appellate Cases

AD Apex Decision

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

Bom. Bombay

Cr. L. J. Criminal Law Journal

Cr.PC Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi

D.M.C. Divorce & matrimonial cases

D.P.A Dowry Prohibition Act

Ed. Edition

FB Full Bench

Guj. Gujarat

H.C. High Court

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

i.e. That is

I.P.C. Indian Penal Code

I.E.A. Indian Evidence Act

Jhar Jharkhand

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 3

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

Kant. Karnataka

Ker. Kerala

LR Law Report

Mad. Madras

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

NCT National Capital Territory

Ori Orissa

Ors. Others

P. Page No.

P&H Punjab & Haryana

Pat. Patna

Raj Rajasthan

r/w Read with

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- Signed

Supp. Supplementary

U.O.I. Union of India

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/Art Under Article

u/s Under section

v. Verses

Vol. Volume

W.B. West Bengal

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 4

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

-INDIAN CASES-

1. Akula Ravinder v. State of AP AIR 1991 SC 1142.

2. Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 763
3. Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand 2002 Cr. LJ 3973 (Jhar).
4. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 2839
5. Bajrang v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 134 (Raj)
6. Balasaheb Annappa Whagmare v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 1 DMC 249.
7. Balwant singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724
8. Bhola Ram v. State Of Punjab AIR 2014 S.C. 241
9. Biswajit Halder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202
10. Durga Parsad v. State of MP 2010 Cr LJ 3419
11. Ghusabhai Risangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2015 SC 2670
12. Gurnam Singh v. State 1998 Cr. Lj 3694 (P&H)
13. Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Ch Cr C (HC) 484 (P&H)
14. Harban Singh v. Gurcharan Kaur, 1990 Cr LJ 1591
15. Hem Chand v. State of Haryana (1994) 3 Crimes (SC)
16. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration AIR 2000 SC 3559
17. InderSain v. The State (Del), 1981 Cr LJ 1116,
18. IS Bind v. State of Gujarat 2013 (125) AIC 102, P. 103
19. Jalam v. State of MP 2014 Cr LJ 360 (MP)
20. Jatashankarsah v. State of Bihar 2013 Cr LJ 1992(Pat).
21. Jawaharmaghi Sindhi Bhansale v. State 2006 Cr LJ 1717 (Guj.)
22. K. Prema S. Rao and Another v. Yadlasrinivasa Rao and others, 2003 (1) SCC 217
23. KailashVati v. AyodhyaPrakash (1977) 79 P.L.R. 216(F.B.)
24. Kaliaya perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR SCW 438
25. Kamesh panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2005 Cr LJ 1418 (SC)
26. Kanchi Ramachandra v. State of A.P., 1995 (Supp.) 4 SCC119
27. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab2000 CR LJ 2993
28. Krishan Lal v. Union of IndiaCr LJ 3472 (P&H) (FB)
29. Kunhiaabdulla v. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 1731.
30. LokeshKaushik & Ors. v. state, SC On 28th April, 2009.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 5

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

31. Malyala Vishwanatha Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 Cr LJ (NOC) 11 (AP)

32. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam On 29 May, 2009
33. Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2012 Cr LJ (NOC) 228 (Raj.)(DB).
34. Mungeshwar Prasad Chaurasia v. State of Bihar 2002 Cr LJ 3505 (S.C.)
35. Murali v. State of Kerala, 2006 DMC 589
36. Naryanamurty v. State Of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC 512.
37. Niranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1998 Cr LJ 630 (Ori)
38. Nunna Venkateswarlu Alias v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) Cr LJ 108
39. Pyarelal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 2 SCC 552
40. Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2002 DLT 147.
41. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690
42. Ram Vishnu Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 DMC 489
43. RavanBalu Indalkar v. State Of Maharahtra, 2012 Bom cr (Cri) 106
44. Sankar Prasad Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1991 Cr LJ 639,
45. Saritha v. R. Ramachandran (2003) DMC 37.
46. SarlaPrabhakar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra 1990 Cr L.J. 407
47. Satya Narayan And Anr v. State 2003 Cr LJ 1228 (Bom) (DB)
48. Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors, 2003 Cr. LJ 2759.
49. Sharadbirdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
50. Shersingh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 980
51. Shobha Rani v. MadhukarReddi1988 AIR 121
52. State of Andhra Pradesh v. KalidindiSahadevudu 2012 Cr LJ 2302 (AP).
53. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yog Raj1997 Cr LJ 2033 (HP) (DB)
54. State of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda 2003 I AD 601 (SC).
55. State of Karnataka v. Neelaawwa 2002 Cr LJ 3981 (Kant)
56. State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal Shukla(1997) 11 SCC 26
57. SunkaraSuri Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh Cr LJ 1480 (AP).
58. Thangappandian v. State by DSP, Mettur, (1998) Cr LJ 993 (Mad).
59. Vinayakaro v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 114 (6) Bom. LR 3528
60. Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372 (FB).
61. Viralu v. State of A.P., 1998 Vol.3 Crimes 549.
62. Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2004) 3 SCC 98

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 6

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-STATUES-

1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1973, NO. 2, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1973 (INDIA)
2. INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, NO. 45, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1860
4. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, NO. 1, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1872
5. THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, NO. 28, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1961

-CONSTITUTION -
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

-BOOKS REFERRED-

1. Aiyar P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed. 2006).

2. Dr. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (8th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2010).
3. Dunham Beth Walston, Introduction to Law, (6th ed., 2011).
4. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, (2nd edition 1983).
5. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th Ed., Universal Law Publication,2015)
6. Halsburys Laws of England, (5th ed. 2016).
7. Halsburys Laws of India (2012)
8. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)
9. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed. , Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016)
10. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 7th Ed. , Lexis Nexis, 2016)
11. Mayne, Hindu Law and Usage, (10 ed. 1938).
12. R. A. Nelsons, Indian Penal Code (11th ed. 2016).
13. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
14. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
15. SC Sarkar, The Indian Penal Code,1860 (3rd Ed., Dwivedi Law Agency, 2014 )
16. SC Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure: An Encyclopaedic Commentary on the Code
of Criminal Procedure,1973 (11th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
17. Sir Dinshah Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, (7th ed.).
18. V.N. Shukla's, Constitution of India, (12th Ed. Eastern Book Company, India 2013).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 7

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-DICTIONARIES REFERRED-

1. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, (9th Ed., Thomas & West, U.S.A 1990)
2. P Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2006)

-WEBSITES REFERRED-

1. www.manupatrafast.in (Last visited on 29th August, 2017)

2. www.scconline.com (Last visited on 5th September, 2017)
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in (Last visited on 6th September, 2017)
4. www.westlawindia.com (Last visited on 26th August, 2017)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 8

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

As regard Criminal Appeal No. ______/2017:-

The Appellant has approached the Honble Supreme Court of India under section 379, The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.1

1
Appeal against conviction by High Court in certain cases. Where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an
order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for
life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 9

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-

-BACKGROUND-

(1.) Mr. Sunil Sharma, aged 29, son of Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mrs. Sunita Sharma live in a
lavish house at New Friends Colony, New Delhi. They have a big textile manufacturing unit
at Ohkla Industrial Area, New Delhi. The business is being run by the family since 1970_s
and they have established a good and respectable name in the society.

(2.) Ms. Amrita Gupta, aged 26, is the daughter of Dr. Ram Gupta and Mrs. Urmila Gupta.
Amrita is an Assistant professor, at Delhi University. She teaches Political Science and was a
gold medallist and university topper in Delhi University. Her father is a well-known
academician and Department Head of Mathematics at University of Kurukshetra.

-THE MARRIAGE-

(3.) Mr. Sunil Sharma and Amrita Gupta met at an online matrimonial website. Soon after
several meetings, they found themselves to be compatible with each other. On the insistence
of Sunil, Mr. Rahul Sharma met Amritas parents. In the course of the conversation, both the
parties mutually agreed for the marriage expenditure to be borne by the brides family. Dr.
Ram agreed for the proposal and performed the wedding on 12.10.2009. Amritas parents
spent almost all their savings for the wedding and made sure that the grooms family didnt
have anything to complain about. At the time of the marriage, the father of the bride gave
cash, jewellery and land as a form of Stridhanana for her maintenance. The total worth of all
this was approx 30 Lakhs. But there was no demand from Mr. Sharma side, all what Mr.
Gupta did with his free will.

-THE INCIDENT-

(4.) After 6 months of the marriage, as Sharmas family business was not going well so just
they ask for a share in the land gifted to Amrita to set up new garment showroom in New
Delhi to rebirth their family business. However, Amrita refused as the same. Due to the
refusal, things started getting heated up in the house. The mother-in law, too, started
commenting as she was unable to bear a child. On 18.10.2012, Sunil and Amrita were blessed
with a baby girl. There was a grand celebration for the same, but the celebration did not last
for long as Amritas in-laws taunted her once or twice for not giving birth to a boy and that
she was a bad luck for the family.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 10

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

(5.) Again, the in-laws continued making unreasonable demands to mentally harass her.
Tired of the claims, Amrita decided to pull all this to an end by putting her daughter and
herself ablaze in the kitchen. The in-laws caught her out from the fire at the moment and
rushed her to the hospital. However, she and her daughter were found with third degree burns
and couldnt survive the same. Both were found dead on 21.12.2016.

(6.) Dr. Ram Gupta lodged a complaint at the police station in New Delhi the very next day
and claimed that his daughter had been forced to take such a step due to unreasonable dowry
demands by her in- laws. After the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against Mr.
Sunil Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mrs. Sunita Sharma u/s. 304B, 498A and 201 of IPC
and u/s. 4 of the Dowry prohibition act, 1961.

(7.) Finding of the Trial Court: The trial court acquitted all the accused on 15.01.2017.

(8.) Finding of the Delhi High Court: The High Court, on 23.03.2017, convicted mother-
in-law and father-in-law u/s 302 and section 498A IPC and section Dowry Prohibition Act,
1956 and acquitted the husband.

(9.) Appeal before the Supreme Court: The appellants have preferred an appeal before the
Honble Supreme Court of India against the decision of the Delhi High Court.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 11

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

- ISSUES RAISED -

WHETHER THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF THE
DOWRY DEATH?

II

WHETHER ANY CRUELTY ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED WAS DONE AS MENTIONED
UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?

III

WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DEMAND OF DOWRY AS TO ATTRACT CONVICTION UNDER

SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961?

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 12

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -

I. WHETHER THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF

DOWRY DEATH?

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the accused is not guilty for
committing the offence of dowry death u/s 304B, IPC, 1860. All the ingredients required to
prove the dowry death do not stand established from the given facts and circumstances. The
deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry, soon before her
death. In the present case, none of the ingredients are being fulfilled. Thus, 304B, IPC, is
not applicable.

II. WHETHER ANY CRUELTY ON THE PART OF THE ACCUSED WAS DONE AS MENTIONED
UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC?

It is most humbly submits before this Honble Court that the acts of the in-laws do not
amount to cruelty as covered u/s 498A, IPC. It is further contended that the evidence on
record do not support the plea taken on behalf of the respondent that the deceased was driven
to commit suicide on account of cruelty or because of the repeated demands made by the
accused. There was simply no evidence of harassment by the appellants; rather it was a case
of misunderstanding on the part of Amrita which led to the commission of suicide by her.
There was no evidence that any act of the appellants had abetted the commission of suicide
by her. The fact that no single complain was lodged by the deceased against the accused in
the past seven years and two months shows that the deceased was happy in the house of her
in-laws. It is further submitted that the trial court below has analyzed the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and has acquitted the accused of all the charges. Secondly,
the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 498A I.P.C. have not been established at all.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 13

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

III. WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DEMAND OF DOWRY AS TO ATTRACT CONVICTION UNDER
SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble Court that there was no demand of dowry
from the in-laws of Amrita. There is no evidence to show that there were constant demands
of dowry from Sharmas family. There is a large difference between dowry and stridhan and
a demand for land on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent
domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 14

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -

I. THAT THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF THE

DOWRY DEATH.

(1.) It is humbly submitted by the respondents that in the present case, the offence of Dowry
death is not committed by the accused, against the deceased, Mrs. Amrita. As per the
evidences in the trial court, no proof against the mother- in- law was established; she could
not be punished only for the fact of being a mother- in- law.2

(2.) To prove dowry death, the following ingredients of 304-B3 should be fulfilled4:

(a) Death of woman was caused any burns or bodily injury or had occurred other than
under normal circumstances.5
(b) Such death should have occurred within 7 year of marriage.6
(c) The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband.
(d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry7
(e) To such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before
her death.8

Only 1st ingredient of aforementioned section followed in our present case.

1.1 DEATH NOT OCCURRED WITHIN 7 YEARS OF MARRIAGE

(3.) The death of a woman in unnatural circumstances must be caused within seven years of
marriage to attract section 304B, IPC, or the presumption u/s 113A and 113B of the Evidence
Act, if other condition also satisfied. When the death of the wife by burning took place
beyond a period of 89 years from the date of marriage, neither 304B IPC nor 113A, IEA

2
Balwantsingh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724
3
Section 304B, Indian penal code, 1860
4
Vinayakaro v. state of Maharashtra (2012) 114 (6) Bom LR 3528; Shersingh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015
SC 980
5
AkulaRavinder v. State of AP, AIR 1991 SC 1142
6
Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand, 2002 Cr. LJ 3973( Jhar)
7
BiswajitHalder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1SCC 202
8
K. Prema S. Rao and Another v. YadlasrinivasaRao and others, 2003 (1) SCC 217
9
MalyalaVishwanathaRao v. State of A.P. 2003 Cr LJ (NOC) 11 (AP)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 15

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

1872 is attracted. Where no evidence regarding marriage was tendered, as such it was not
proved that death occurred within seven years of marriage; appellant accused was not
convicted for offence u/s 304B, IPC.10 Similarly in this case, according to the factsheet, the
wedding of Amrita was held on 12-10-2009, and death had been occurred on 21-12-2016,
clearly shows that death of the deceased happened after seven years, two months and ten
days, which is beyond the scope of 304B.

1.2 DECEASED WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT

(4.) The proximity of time between the alleged ill-treatment and time of death is a highly
relevant factor, and is an essential and necessary evidence for proof of dowry death. 11

(5.) The ordinarily dictionary meaning of cruelty would not be applicable to hold that it is
vague being interpreted in so many ways. Obviously, the legislature has defined the term
cruelty while keeping in view the object which was required to be achieved.12

(6.) In the decided case of Jawaharmaghi Sindhi Bhansale v. State13, The Honble SC
observed that, where the Father-in-law was, in a case was subject to vague accusation of ill-
treatment but since there was no other evidence which could prove that the father-in-law was
inflicting physical and mental cruelty on the deceased wife, hence order of conviction and
sentence passed were set aside.

(7.) In the present case there is no evidence to show that the deceased has been subjected to
cruelty or harassment prior to her death, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
The parents of the deceased did not lodge any police complaint about the alleged demand and
torture for the same but filed the complaint only after the death of their daughter, which
clearly shows that there was no cruelty or harassment or ill-treatment, by the in-laws of the
deceased.

1.3 NOT FALLING UNDER DEMAND OF DOWRY

(8.) Explanation to section 304B, IPC refers to dowry as having the same meaning as in 2
of the DPA 1961.The term dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed
to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the

10
Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act 1872.
11
Niranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1998 Cr LJ 630 (Ori)
12
KrishanLal v. Union of India Cr LJ 3472 (P&H) (FB).
13
2006 Cr.LJ 1717 (Guj)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 16

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

marriage or by the parent of either party to the marriage or to any other person. 14Merely
making of dowry demand would not attract the provision of 304B, IPC.15

(9.) In the present case, the accused never asked for anything from the deceased, they only
asked for a share in the land that was given to the deceased by her father as a part of
stridhan, which does not come under the ambit of dowry. Similarly, in the case of Rohtash
v. state of Haryana, HC convicted the accused, for demanding money from the deceased for
establishing business. While allowing the appeal against the judgment of the HC of P&H, the
apex court by overruling the judgment of the P&H HC held that the demand of the money for
establishing business- is not necessarily dowry demand.

(10.) Further, In case of Gurnam Singh v. State16, where the accused were charged for
harassing the victim for bringing inadequate amount of money but demand for dowry was not
proved and hearsay evidence of the witnesses could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It was held that offence u/s 498A was not made out and accused was entitled to acquittal.

(11.) When there was no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as dowry
though it was given by the father of the deceased in the marriage as pasupukumuma, the
harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the husband after the marriage, to force
her to transfer the land in his name was not in connection with any demand for dowry17

1.4 NO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT SOON BEFORE HER DEATH

(12.) The expression soon before her death used in the subtractive 304B, IPC, and
113B, IEA, is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated
and expression soon before is not defined. When the demand of dowry is made soon after
marriage by accused but beyond the range of soon before death of the deceased, 304B,
IPC, is not attracted.18

(13.) A conjoint reading of 113B, IEA, 1872 and 304B, IPC, shows that there must be
material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of any natural or accidental death so as to bring it
within the purview of the death occurrence otherwise than in normal circumstances

14
Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
15
Bhola Ram v. State Of Punjab Air 2014 S.C. 241.
16
1998 Cr.Lj 3694 (P&H)
17
Ibid.
18
Mungeshwarprasad Chaurasia v. State Of Bihar 2002 Cr LJ 3505 (S.C.)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 17

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or
harassment and only in that case presumption operates. But prosecution failed to do so. If
alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb
mental equilibrium for the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.19

(14.) Cruelty soon before death for demand for dowry is necessary constituents without which the
offence is not complete.20In case of Kaliayaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu21specifically said
such cruelty or harassment was committed soon before her death the expression soon
before her death has to be accorded its appropriate meaning in the facts and circumstances of a
given case. In present case there was huge party given by Sharmas. Whole family was happy
for baby girl and celebrating the birth of baby girl. Thus given fact and circumstances shows
that there was no cruelty soon before her death.

1.5 THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE

(15.) In case of Sharadbirdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra22, there in, while
dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus on the prosecution to prove
that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false
defense or plea. In the present case, nowhere from the facts of the case, it is derived that such
a chain of circumstantial evidence exist. There were huge celebrations by the accused for the
birth of the baby girl. Also, they rescued the deceased and took her to the hospital as earliest
as possible.

1.6 PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113B, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

(16.) In order to establish the offence u/s 304B, IPC, the prosecution is obliged to prove that
the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances and such death occurs within 7 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. Such harassment and cruelty must be made in connection with any
demand for dowry.23

19
Kameshpanjiyar v. State Of Bihar 2005 Cr LJ 1418 (SC); Naryanamurty v. State Of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC
512.
20
Bajrang v. State Of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 134 (Raj).
21
AIR SCW 4387.
22
AIR 1984 SC 1622.
23
Hem Chand v. State Of Haryana (1994) 3 Crimes (SC); State Of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda 2003
I AD 601 (SC).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 18

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

(17.) Also, it is pertinent to note that this presumption can only be raised only on proof of
the following essentials which means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is
being tried for the offence u/s 304B IPC. Also in the present case, Trial court acquitted all the
accused under the charges of 304B. Therefore, it could be said that the deceased was not
being ill- treated or harassed with cruelty on account of dowry.

(18.) In the case of Durga Parsad v. State of MP24, court held that if the requirements of
304B of IPC and 113-B of IEA cant be satisfied by the prosecution, accused must be
acquitted. In the matter present before the Court it is distinguishable from the above cited
facts and circumstances that the entire three requisite to form an evident case of dowry death
cannot be established. Also from various cases cited and facts provided, the respondents have
tried to disprove the various allegations of cruelty and demands of dowry. Since it has been
established that the accused are not guilty u/s 304-B, there can be no presumption of dowry
death by the Court against the accused u/s 113B.25

(19.) In case of Yashoda v. state of Madhya Pradesh26 court held that there must be a
proximate link between the act of cruelty along with the demand of dowry and death of the
victim. But in present case there was neither cruelty nor demand of dowry. Where there is no
evidence that the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, the
husband or his relative would not be convicted on the charge of dowry death u/s 304B, IPC.
Conviction of husband was set aside.27

(20.) Evidence was lacking to show that the appellants, mother in law and father in law
inflicted cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before death. The two accused
were acquitted of offence u/s 304B, IPC.28

(21.) According to the facts and provision stated it can be easily be construed that there was
lack of the evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the
demand of dowry, soon before her death. Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Honble
court that the conviction of the accused should be set aside.

24
2010 Cr.LJ 3419
25
Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
26
(2004) 3 SCC 98
27
Jatashankarsah v. State Of Bihar 2013 Cr LJ 1992(Pat).
28
Mool Chand v. State Of Rajasthan 2012 Cr LJ (NOC) 228 (Raj.)(DB).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 19

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

II. THAT THE ACTS OF IN-LAWS DO NOT AMOUNT TO CRUELTY UNDER SECTION 498A,
IPC.

(22.) It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of India that in the context
of given facts and circumstances it is evident that there was a no substantial cruelty by the
appellants.

(23.) In order to prove the offence u/s 498A the following ingredients must be fulfilled:

1. The women must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment &

3. Such cruelty of harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or
by the relative of her husband.29

(24.) In this present case only the first ingredient of 498A of IPC has been fulfilled as the
deceased and Mr. Sunil Sharma got married on 12.10.2012. The other two ingredients are not
fulfilled, as the deceased had never been subjected to cruelty, neither mental nor physical by
the husband or his relatives. There has never been any demand for dowry from the deceased
by the in-laws, rather at the time of the marriage, the father of the deceased happily and
wilfully gave stridhan to his daughter, which does not come under the ambit of dowry.
Mere unhappiness in the matrimonial life, pushing the wife to commit suicide, will not attract
498A, IPC30.

(25.) Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated u/s 498A, IPC are of much higher and sterner
degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of
dissolution of marriage i.e. Divorce. 31 The High Court of Bombay has also taken the same
view in the case of Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v. State Of Maharashtra 32observing that
every kind of harassment or cruelty would not attract 498A. It must be established that the
beating and harassment to fulfil the illegal demands of the husband or her in-laws, forced the
wife to commit suicide.

(26.) In the instant case, it is evident from the facts that the comments passed by the mother
in-law were not at all with an intention to force the deceased to commit suicide. The Supreme

29
K.D GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1428 (2d Ed. 2013).
30
Thangappandian v. State By Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Mettur, (1998) Cr LJ 993 (Mad).
31
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand And Ors, 2003 Cr. LJ 2759.
32
1990 Cr.L.J. 407

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 20

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

Court has also taken a similar view in the case of State Of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal
Shukla33, observing that the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed acts of
harassment or cruelty as contemplated by 498A, and such harassment or cruelty must be the
cause forcing the wife to commit suicide. What can be deduced from this authority is that a
solitary incident cannot be interpreted to be the sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment
attracting 498A, IPC. In the above stated case, incessant, persistent and sufficiently
grave cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation that she is left with
no other option but to commit suicide, was absent. Cruelty or harassment must be unabated,
continuous or recurring & unbearable, one or two incidents casually taking place, May
therefore, attract another penal provision of The Indian Penal Code, but will not attract
498A, IPC. What is further necessary may be elucidated.34

(27.) There may be innumerable instances where an emotional lady may commit suicide, the
moment a word is uttered in anger or in haste. But cruelty contemplates the conduct of the in-
laws who intentionally cause harassment to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause
injury to her life, limb, etc. In the absence of any such circumstances, it is difficult to
comprehend that such conduct of the in-laws amounts to cruelty as defined u/s 498A, IPC.35

(28.) It may be considered cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme
Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi36. The Apex Court observed that cruelty
u/s 498A, IPC is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the
wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.37 In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi
Administration)38, the Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context of
the provisions of 498A, IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of
a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(29.) Also, "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided
in 498A, IPC and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to
another. In the present case, it is not at all evident from the facts that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging
the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of

33
(1997) 11 SCC 26
34
Indrasing M. Raol v. State Of Gujarat, (2000) DMC 239.
35
Smt. Sumangala v. Laxminarayan Anant Hegde And Anr., 2003 Cr LJ 1418
36
1988 AIR 121
37
Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (Nct Of Delhi), 2002 DLT 147.
38
AIR 2000 SC 3559

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 21

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

498A, IPC.39 The standards adopted under Clause (a) of Explanation to 498A, IPC as to
what conduct is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide cannot obviously be the
standards of a reasonably prudent person. The instinct to survive is so primary and basic in
life that no conduct can be reckoned as likely to drive an ordinarily prudent person to commit
suicide. For an ordinarily prudent human being, it is possible to reasonably assume that he is
not likely to commit suicide, whatever is the adversity. He would battle to get over and
surmount the adversity. No conduct can hence be objectively calibrated as conduct likely to
drive an ordinarily prudent woman to commit suicide.

(30.) The Legislature, it appears to me, had alertly and consciously used the expression "the
woman" and not "a woman" or "a reasonably prudent woman". Expression "the woman" used
in Clause (a) of the explanation must certainly suggest that the standards of the woman in
question have to be adopted while considering whether the conduct impugned was likely to
drive the staid woman to commit suicide.40 The conduct of in-laws in the present case cannot
be said as the conduct likely to drive an ordinarily prudent woman to commit suicide.

(31.) It is only wilful conduct, with intention to cause physical torture or mental agony to a
woman in married life would amount to cruelty to hold the person responsible guilty of an
offence.41 To establish the offence u/s 498A, IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty as
defined in clauses (a) and (b) of the explanation to 498A, IPC.42 Where no specific
particulars regarding time, place and manner of any beating, cruelty or harassment of the
deceased for demand for dowry were given, the accused were acquitted of the charge u/s
498A.43

(32.) In the present case there is no evidence to show that the deceased has been subjected to
cruelty and harassment prior to her death, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
The parents of the deceased did not lodge any police complaint about the alleged demand and
torture for the same but filed the complaint only after the death of their daughter. Simply
because the accused husband and relatives in past used to quarrel, by itself is not sufficient to
39
Manju Ram Kalita v. State Of Assam On 29 May, 2009
40
Murali V. State Of Kerala, 2006 DMC 589
41
Ram Vishnu Gupta And 2 Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 DMC 489; See Also Pyarelal v. State of
Haryana, (1997) 2 SCC 552; Kanchi Ramachandra v. State of A.P., 1995 (Supp.) 4 SCC119; Viralu v. State of
A.P., 1998 Vol.3 Crimes 549.
42
IS Bind v. State of Gujarat 2013 (125) AIC 102, P. 103.
43
Jalam v. State of MP 2014 Cr LJ 360 (MP); See Also Satya Narayan And Anr v. State 2003 Cr LJ 1228
(Bom) (DB); Sunkara Suri Babu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Cr LJ 1480 (AP).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 22

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

attract the provisions of section 498A, IPC.44 In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yog
Raj45, even if the accused has demanded Rs 15000 from his wife to be brought from her
parents, it will not bring the case within the ambit of 498A, IPC, in the absence of evidence
that she was being treated with cruelty on account of such demand.

(33.) Even mere harassment or mere demand for dowry for property etc. is not cruelty. It is
only when the harassment is shown to have been caused for coercing a woman to meet
demand that it amounts to cruelty which has been made punishable under the section46.

(34.) It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that one or two instances of
demand are not sufficient for proving the offence of cruelty. In order to prove said offence it
has to be established that there was consistent harassment and ill treatment over a
considerable time so that it amounts to cruelty within the meaning of explanation u/s 498A47.
In the present case there is no such evidence and the case was registered only after the death
of Amrita. There is neither any specificity in the allegations levelled against the appellants
nor are they in equation with the point of time.

(35.) There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon
before her death. It is submitted that the requirement of proof soon before her death is very
essential in proving the offence of dowry death. In the case of Kunhiaabdulla v. State of
Kerala48 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that there must be existence of approximate
and live link between a fact of cruelty based on the dowry demand and concerned death. If
alleged incident of cruelty is remote enough and has become stale enough not to disturb
mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.49

(36.) In the present case it is alleged that as the deceased did not beget children, the accused
harassed the deceased by calling her a barren woman. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
v. Kalidindi Sahadevudu50, it was held that mere commenting that the deceased was not
begetting children, does not amount to subjecting the deceased to cruelty within the meaning
of 498A, IPC. This shows that there was no cruelty from the side of Sharmas family.

44
Ravan Balu Indalkar v. State Of Maharahtra, 2012 Bomcr (Cri) 106.
45
1997 Cr LJ 2033 (HP) (DB).
46
Lokesh Kaushik &Ors. v. State, SC On 28th April, 2009.
47
Section 498A, Indian Penal Code.
48
AIR 2004 SC 1731.
49
Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785.
50
2012 Cr LJ 2302 (AP).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 23

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

(37.) In the recent judgment of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar51 it has been held that a
general tendency of roping all the relations has developed. Court also held that there is
misuse of the provisions of 498A, IPC and so there is a need to circumspect and arrest in
such cases should not be made in routine matter. In the present case no specific overt acts are
attributed to the husband, father-in-law or the mother-in-law and therefore their conviction by
the Honble High Court is not sustainable and is required to be set aside. Also, in the case
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab52, it was observed that the in-laws of the deceased woman could
not be roped in, just because they were close relatives. The overt-acts which are attributed to
them would require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(38.) It is humbly submitted that the provisions of 498A of IPC are not a law for taking
revenge, seeking recovery of dowry or for forcing a divorce, but a penal provision to punish
the wrongdoers. There was no allegation of any kind of physical torture. The evidence with
regard to cruelty was absolutely sketchy and not convincing. 53 This section was intended for
the protection of married women from unscrupulous husbands but is clearly misused by a few
women; again this is strictly condemned in Saritha v. R. Ramachandran.54

(39.) In case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab55, the apex court observed as: For the fault of
the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts
attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be
held responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of
the husband as accused has to be curbed.

(40.) It is humbly submitted before the Honourable SC of India that the accused are not
guilty of cruelty as mere asking for property does not make it dowry demand and taunting for
not begetting child is not covered under cruelty as discussed u/s 498A of IPC. The deceased
has never lodged any complaint against the accused in the past seven years and two months
which shows that she was very happy in her in-laws house and never faced any cruel
treatment.

51
(2013) 4 SCC 690.
52
2000 CR LJ 2993.
53
Ghusabhai Risangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2015 SC 2670, 2015 Cr LJ 3613.
54
(2003) DMC 37.
55
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2000 CriLJ 2993.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 24

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

III. THAT THERE WAS NO DEMAND OF DOWRY AS TO ATTRACT CONVICTION UNDER

SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

(41.) It is humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court of India that in the context
of the given facts and circumstances it is evident that there was no substantial demand of
dowry from the in-laws of deceased. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 gives
Definition of "dowry".

(42.) In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly-

(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) By the parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party
to the marriage or to any other person;

At or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.56

(43.) There was no such demand from in-laws of the deceased as they didnt demand a
single penny from Mr. Gupta. Mr. Gupta had given her daughter some cash, jewelry and land
in form of stridhan and they had given it without any force. There is a lot of difference
between dowry and stridhan. 2, DPA, 1961, specifically says given or agreed to be
given. In the present case Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sharma did not give or agreed to give any
property or valuable security in consideration for marriage.

(44.) The term Stridhana literally means the womans property. According to the
Smritika, the Stridhana constituted those properties which she received by way of gifts from
her relatives, which included mostly movable property such as ornaments, jewellery, dresses.
Sometimes even land or property or even houses were given as gifts. The purpose behind
deeming properties as Stridhana was to ensure that "The woman" had full right over its
disposal or alienation. On her death, all types of Stridhana, devolved upon her heirs. But it
had been misused by Mr. Gupta and Mr. Gupta falsely said to the police that there was dowry
demand by her in laws. In case of Nunna Venkateswarlu Alias v. The State of Andhra

56
Section 2, The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 25

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

Pradesh57 court ruled that demand of Stridhana made is also not dowry as defined u/s 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(45.) In the case of Kailash Vati v. Ayodhya Prakash,58 Chief Justice Sandhawalia, while
recognizing the distinction between stridhana and dowry, used both the words
interchangeably as if one meant the other .He opined as follows:

The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 does not bar traditional giving of presents at or
about the time of wedding. Thus such presents or dowry given by the parents is
therefore not at all within the definition of the statute.

(46.) He further went on to state that:

Law as it stands today visualizes a complete and full ownership of her individual property
by a Hindu wife and in this context the factum of marriage is of little or no relevance and
she can own and possess property in the same manner as a Hindu male Once it is held that
a Hindu wife can own property in her own right , then it is purely a question of fact
whether the dowry or traditional presents given to her, were to be individually owned by
her or had been gifted to the husband alone. Once it is found that as a fact that these
articles of dowry were so given to her individually and in her own right, then I am unable
to see how the mere factum of marriage would alter any such property right and divest her
of ownership either totally or partially.

(47.) A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some
urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is
normally understood.59 The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not; therefore, show
that any demand for "dowry" as defined in 2, DPA, 1961 was made by the appellants as
what was asked for was some land for expanding their business.

(48.) In Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab60, dowry and stridhan has been distinguished and
held that concept of dowry has defined under Section 261 is wider that the concept of
stridhan, while dowry signifies presents given in connection with marriage to the bridal
couple as well as other, stridhan is confined to the property given to or meant for the bride.

57
1996Cr LJ 108
58
(1977)79 P.L.R. 216(F.B.)
59
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 2839.
60
Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Ch Cr C (HC) 484 (P&H)
61
Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 26

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

(49.) With regard to the allegation of demand of a car and fixed deposit, no evidence has
been presented by the prosecution to substantiate the same62. Any demand of any property or
valuable security after the performance of marriage which demand had not been made at the
time of settlement of marriage would not constitute dowry.63

(50.) In a case it was held that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 does not, in any way, bar
the giving of presents at or about the time of wedding, which may be willing and affectionate
gifts by parents and close relations of the bride to her.64

(51.) Also, Mayne in his book Hindu Law And Usage said that: The whole body of such a
family, consisting of males and female some of the members of which are coparceners, that
is, persons who on partition would be entitled to demand a share while others are only
entitled to maintenance.65

(52.) Hindu undivided familys meaning is given by Sir Dinshah Mulla in his book
Principles of Hindu Law in these words;

A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common
ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters.66

(53.) This shows wife is the integral part of family. So while being the part of the family the
in-laws just asked for some help from the deceased and she denied so just asking cannot
amounts to dowry. As the court, in case of Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra67 that
a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent
domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the
said word is normally understood. This Court held that being a penal provision Section 2 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will have to be construed strictly.

(54.) In the present case, the appellants never made any unlawful demand from Amrita or
her relatives. They merely asked for help for expanding the family business, which Amrita
being the family member was morally bound to do. Moreover, they did not make any demand
at the time of the marriage. Had there been any wrongful intentions, the appellants would
62
Factsheet, 7
63
Harban Singh v. Gurcharan Kaur, 1990 Cr LJ 1591; See also, Sankar Prasad Shaw v. State of West Bengal,
1991 Cr LJ 639 , Inder Sain v. The State (del), 1981 Cr LJ 1116, Balasaheb Annappa Whagmare v. State of
Maharashtra , (1998) 1 DMC 249.
64
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab , AIR 1982 P&H 372 (FB)
65
MAYNE, HINDU LAW AND USAGE 304-305 (10 ed. 1938)
66
SIR DINSHAH MULLA, PRINCIPLES OF HINDU LAW 230 (7th ed.).
67
AIR 2007 SC 763

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 27

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

have made a demand while the marriage was taking place Even definition of dowry in 2 of
DPA, 1961 makes it clear that dowry has to be in connection with the marriage and where
there is no connection between the demand and marriage, the same will not fall within the
definition of dowry. Hence, demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the
appellants cannot be sustained.

-PRAYER-

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honourable Court, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The judgement of High Court is not valid

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 28

 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SHOOLINI UNIVERSITY.

2. The accused must be acquitted from all the charges.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the
Best Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)
-COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANTS-

(______________)

s/d

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 29