TC - 041 - Respondent Memorial

1ST LEX EXPLORE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TC_41
1ST LEX EXPOLRE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF:

ARISING OUT OF WRIT PETITION NO.___ OF 2023
MR. CHOTELAL (APPELLANTS)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIVA (RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

& HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

PAGE 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. List of Abbreviations 3-4
2. Index of Authorities 5-7
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 8
4. Statement of Facts 9-10
5. Statement of Issues 11
5. Summary of Arguments 12-13
6. Arguments Advanced 14-23
Issue 1 - Whether the SLP filed by Chotelal is maintainable?
Issue 2 - Whether the diary written by Kiran Kumari can be
considered as a piece of dying declaration?
Issue 3 - Whether the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court and the
Hon’ble High Court is erroneous?
Issue 4 - Whether the section 304B and section 498A of IPC 1860 is
unconstitutional?
7. Prayer for Relief 24

PAGE 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
LTD. LIMITED
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ARB ARBITRATION CASES
DIST. DISTRICT
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
& AND
ANR. ANOTHER
ART. ARTICLE
APP. APPLICATION
CONST. CONSTITUTION
DTD. DATED
ed. EDITION
Govt. GOVERNMENT
HC HIGH COURT

PAGE 3
Hon’ble HONORABLE
Ld. LD.
Ltd. LIMITED
No. NUMBER
ORS. ORS.
REP. REPORT
§ SECTION
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR/ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
v. VERSUS

PAGE 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
SERIAL NAME OF THE CASE CITATION PAGE

NO. NO.
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan 1961 AIR 715
1. 15
AIR 1950 SC 169

2. Pritam Singh v State 15
Chikkarange Gowda v State of Mysore AIR 1956 SC 731

3. 16
4. Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra vs K.S. AIR 1960 SC 45 16

Dalipsinghji
5. Uttam vs State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576 16
6. Ulka Ram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 1814 16
7. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443 17

Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay
8. AIR 1958 SC 22 18
9. Prabhash Sharma & Anr. vs State CRL.A.No.5/2002 18

Lakhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh
10. CRIMINAL APPEAL 18
NO. 2297 of 2009
11. State of Gujarat v. RabriPanchaPunja CriLj. 1981 19
12. Sudhakar Singh vs State CRIMINAL APPEAL 19

PAGE 5
NO. 240/1998, Delhi

high Court.
AIR 2019 SC 457
13. Jagdish Chand v State of Haryana 20
14. Sarvan Singh Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2000 HP 239 23
15. Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors 2000 (3) RI 556 24
16. Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 3546 24
STATUTES REFERRED
SERIAL
NAME
NO.
1. The Constitution Of India, 1950.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1862.
4. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
BOOKS REFERRED
SERIA
NAME OF THE BOOKS
L NO.
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, V.N. SHUKLA

PAGE 6
2. BATUKLAL’S THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, K.D. GAUR (7TH Ed.)
4. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL’S THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
WEB RESOURCES
2. www.judis.nic.in (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)
3. www.indiankanoon.com
4. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)
5. www.westlaw.india.com (WEST LAW INDIA)

PAGE 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiva for
the alleged violation of natural justice. The respondent maintains that no violation of natural
justice has taken place. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court need not entertain its jurisdiction in this
writ petition.
The counsel for the respondents, hereby humbly submit to this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of Union of Indiva.
The respondent would like to humbly submit that this petition is not maintainable under this
Hon’ble Court.

PAGE 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Chhotelal Kumar and Kiran Kumari's marriage was solemnized on the first of
January 2020 as per Hindu ceremonies.Chhotelal Kumar happens to be an engineer and
Kiran Kumari was a reputed doctor. Kiran Kumari was the daughter of a prominent
politician in the country.
2. Since the day of matrimonial ties Chhotelal Kumar and Kiran Kumari's matrimonial life
was in the doldrums. Kiran kumari stayed for 20 days in her matrimonial home and returned
to her parent’s home and told them that her husband is demanding a dowry, a luxury car.
Her father gave her Rs. 10 Lakhs and sent her back to her matrimonial home.
3. Chhotelal Kumar further demanded Rs. 50 lakhs for purchasing a plot. On 5th August
2020, Chhotelal Kumar took his wife and left her in her parent's house and told them that
Kiran Kumari could get back to the matrimonial home only upon the payment of Rs. 50
lakhs.
4. After a few days, Chhotelal Kumar had a change of heart and he brought his wife back to
his home and also apologized to her, and promised to keep her happy. On 10th September
2022 Kiran Kumari went to her father and told him that Chhotelal Kumar is asking for Rs. 60
lahks.
5. Kiran’s father gave her Rs. 30 lakhs and promised to give the remaining balance soon and
sent back Kiran to her matrimonial home. On 15th October 2022 at about 9:00 am Kiran
Kumari died of strangulation due to suicide at her matrimonial home
6. The Father of Kiran Kumari lodged an FIR to the police that his daughter was murdered by
Chhotelal Kumar because of dowry. The police registered the FIR, held the inquest over the
dead body, and sent the same for post-mortem.
7. As the dead body was highly decomposed, the Doctors referred the same to the Head of the
Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College. The Head of the Department of Forensic

PAGE 9
Medicine examined the body and found a ligature mark around the neck on dissection of the
ligature mark he found that ecchymosis was present, the trachea was congested, and was
containing bloody froth. He also found a contusion over the chin. The Doctor also found
several other contusions on the hands, axilla, and other parts of the body.
8. He opined that the death was due to strangulation. After the completion of the
investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
against Chhotelal Kumar.
9. During the investigation, police recovered a diary written by Kiran wherein she had
narrated how her husband use to make demands for dowry. The plea of the accused was one
of denial and he stated that when he returned from his office in the evening and entered the
room, he found the deceased hanging from the hook in the ceiling.
10. He got nervous and thus, could not intimate the police. He further took the plea of alibi
and adduced the evidence to show that he was in office during the time of the offense.
11. The trial court having examined the evidence of the material witnesses held that this is a
case of strangulation and therefore the death was unnatural and that there was a demand for
dowry and there was cruelty on the part of the accused and accordingly convicted him under
Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C and awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life for the
offense punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C.
12. The learned trial court considered the diary as the dying declaration. The trial court did
not go into the plea of alibi.
13. On appeal, the Hon’ble High Court agreed with the conclusions reached by the trial court
and dismissed the appeal.Chhotelal Kumar filed a Special Leave Petition to Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiva.

PAGE 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY CHHOTELAL IS

MAINTAINABLE?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI CAN BE CONSIDERED

AS A PIECE OF DYING DECLARATION?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE

HIGH COURT IS ERRONEOUS?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER SECTION 304B AND SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

PAGE 11
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY CHHOTELAL

IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted that Article 136 of the Indian Constitution of Indiva confers a wide
power of discretion on the Hon’ble Apex Court to exercise it’s discretion on the admissibility
of cases where disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of
natural justice has occurred. The counsel for the Respondent pleads that in order for any case
to be admissible under Art. 136, the petitioners have to establish the fact that disregard to the
forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of natural justice has occurred.
Otherwise, such case is not admissible.
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI CAN BE

CONSIDERED AS A PIECE OF DYING DECLARATION?
It is humbly submitted that the diary written by the deceased has been rightfully considered
as “dying declaration” as it states the reason, the background and circumstances which led the
deceased to be driven towards suicide. It is further submitted that the version of facts given
by the deceased in the diary has been corroborated with evidence and it rightfully identifies
that the accused had committed offence u/s 304B and 498A of the IPC.
ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND

HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS ERRONEOUS?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the judgment of Learned Trial Court
and Hon’ble High Court is not erroneous as the judgement is based on proper reasoning and
the the prescedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

PAGE 12
ISSUE 4. WHETHER SECTION 304B AND SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is a humble submission from the side of respondent that the accused is guilty under Section
304B and 498A of the Indian Penal code for the dowry death of Kiran Kumari as the chain of
circumstances of the case implies to the fulfillment of all the necessary conditions required
for dowry death. The conditions include Death of a woman should be caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, Death should have occurred
within seven years of her marriage, The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, Cruelty or harassment should be
for or in connection with the demand for dowry, Cruelty or harassment should have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death; all which have been been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

PAGE 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY

CHHOTELAL IS MAINTAINABLE?
1. It is humbly submitted that Art. 136 of Indian Constitution states that Special leave to
appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces
2. The counsel further submits that Article 136 of the Constitution confers a wide
discretionary power on this Court to entertain appeals in suitable cases not otherwise
provided for by the Constitution. It is implicit in the reserve power that it cannot be
exhaustively defined, but decided cases-, do not permit interference unless "by disregard to
the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise,
substantial and grave injustice has been done". Though Art. 136 is couched in widest terms,
the practice of this Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases
when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court.1
3. It is humbly submitted that the wide discretionary power with which this court is invested
under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only, and as far as possible a
more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range
of matters which can come up before it under this article.2
4. It is further submitted that it is a well settled practice of Supreme Court that except where
there has been an irregularity or an irregularity of procedure or a violation of the principles of
natural justice, the Supreme Court does not permit a third review of evidence with regard to
1
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan 1961 AIR 715
2
Pritam Singh v State AIR 1950 SC 169

PAGE 14
the question of fact in cases in which two courts of two courts of fact have appreciated and
assessed the evidence with regard to such question.3
5. Further, it is submitted that the Supreme Court in it’s judgment4 stated that the court will
not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below unless, of course, the findings
are perverse or vitiated by error of law, or there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
6. Henceforth it is humbly submitted that the present appeal may kindly be rejected by the
Hon’ble court as the appellant has failed to establish any irregularity or an irregularity of
procedure or a violation of the principles of natural justice, or any disregard to the forms of
legal process by the lower courts or that it is an exceptional case under any special
circumstances.
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI

CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A PIECE OF DYING DECLARATION?
7. It is humbly submitted that Dying declaration is the last statement that is made by a person
as to the cause of his imminent death or the circumstances that had resulted in that situation,
at a stage when the declarant is conscious of the fact that there are virtually nil chances of his
survival. On an assumption that at such a critical stage, a person would be expected to speak
the truth, courts have attached great value to the veracity of such a statement.5
8. Coming to the Issue whether the diary written by the deceased Kiran Kumar can be
considered as a piece of dying declaration, it is humbly submitted that in Ulka Ram vs State
of Rajasthan6. Apex Court held that, “when a statement is made by a person as to cause of his
death or as to any circumstances of transaction which resulted into his death, in case in which
cause of his death comes in question is admissible in evidence, such statement in law are
called dying declaration.”
3
Chikkarange Gowda v State of Mysore AIR 1956 SC 731
4
Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra vs K.S. Dalipsinghji AIR 1960 SC 45
5
Uttam vs State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576
6
AIR 2001 SC 1814.

PAGE 15
9. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka7 held that ‘the principle on which a dying
declaration is admitted in evidence is indicated in latin maxim, nemo morturus procsumitur
mentri, a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth”
10. Further, Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act states:

“Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc ., is
relevant. —Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or
who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance
cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of
the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following
cases:—
1. when it relates to cause of death. —When the statement is made by a person as to the cause
of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death,
in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are
relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made,
under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the
cause of his death comes into question.
2. or is made in course of business. —When the statement was made by such person in the
ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum
made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of
professional duty; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money,
goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or
signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by
him.
3. or against interest of maker. —When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary
interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed
him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages.
4. or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general interest. —When the
statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or
custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed he would
have been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as
to such right, custom or matter had arisen.”
7
(2003) 6 SCC 443

PAGE 16
5. or relates to existence of relationship. —When the statement relates to the existence of

any relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons as to whose
relationship [by blood, marriage or adoption] the person making the statement had special
means of knowledge, and when the statement was made before the question in dispute was
raised.
6 or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs. —When the statement relates to the
existence of any relationship 25 [by blood, marriage or adoption] between persons deceased,
and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such
deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family
portrait, or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when such
statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.”
10. Now, Before dealing with this contention, we may touch upon the well settled principles
on the issue. The tests which a statement attributed to a dead person has to satisfy before it is
admissible in evidence as a dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act are laid down
in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay8 which
holds the field.9 The law is that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and
made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction can be based solely on it, without any further
corroboration.10
11. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay which holds the
field. In this binding judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court conducted a review of the
relevant provisions of the Evidence Act as well as judicial precedents of the Supreme Court
as well as High Courts in India and laid down the principles thus :-
"16. On a review of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and of the
decided cases in the different High Courts in India and in this Court, we have
come to the conclusion, in agreement with the opinion of the Full Bench of the
Madras High Court, aforesaid, (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute
rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction
8
AIR 1958 SC 22
9
Prabhash Sharma & Anr. vs State CRL.A.No.5/2002
10
Lakhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2297 of 2009

PAGE 17
unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own
facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was
made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying
declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other piece of evidence; (4) that
a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence
and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with
reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a
dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the
proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as
far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a
much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral
testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and
human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying
declaration, the Court has to keep in view the circumstances like the
opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was
sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the
man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was
making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement
has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a
dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement
had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by
interested parties."
12. It is further submitted that in State of Gujarat v. RabriPanchaPunja11 , the court

held that ''It retains its full value if it can justify that victim could identify the
assailant, version narrated by victim is intrinsically sound and accords with
probabilities and any material evidence is not proved wrong by any other reliable
evidence''.
13. Further, in Sudhakar Singh vs State12 , where the deceased had written a suicide note
alledging the demand of dowry before the suicide, such suicide note has been rightly
accepted as ‘dying declaration’
CriLj. 1981
11
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 240/1998, Delhi high Court.

12

PAGE 18
“13. The deceased had torn two pages from the diary and had written the said note in red ink,
signifying blood and death. As noticed above, the deceased had died by hanging herself from
a ceiling fan after standing on a stool, which was kept on the bed. It was a deliberate act. The
suicide note, therefore, has been rightly treated and regarded as a "dying declaration" of the
deceased.”
Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case being similar to the aforementioned
case, the diary constitutes an important piece of evidence under section 32 of Indian Evidence
Act.
14. It is humbly submitted that all the conditions mentioned herein have been met. The
allegations made by the deceased have been corroborated with evidences and witnesses. The
statements of the deceased has been consistent throughout and the same has been verified by
other witnesses. In light of the facts and circumstances, the veracity of the allegations made
in the deceased’s diary is unquestionable.
ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL

COURT AND HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS ERRONEOUS?
15. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the judgment of Learned Trial Court
and Hon’ble High Court is not erroneous as the judgement is based on proper reasoning and
the the prescedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
16. It is humbly submitted that in the recent case of Jagdish Chand v State of
Haryana13, Ranjan Gogoi CJI speaking through the Court said the appellants who were the
father-in-law of the deceased, one Shanti Devi, had been convicted under sections 304-B and
498-A of the Indian Penal Code. They had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years for the offence under section 304-B, IPC and for a period of one year for the
offence under section 498-A. IPC. Sentences of fine for each of the offence had also been
imposed. In appeal. the High Court, while affirming the conviction of the accused appellants,
13
AIR 2019 SC 457

PAGE 19
had, however reduced the sentence so far as the offence under section 304-B, IPC is
concerned from a period of 10 years custody to a period of 7 years custody. Aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed by the appellant accused. Dismissing the appeal and upholding the
conviction and sentence imposed the Apex Court said: Demands for dowry by the accused-
appellants as well as the husband and Il-treatment/cruelty on failure to meet the said demands
is evident from the evidence.
17. It is sumbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the judgement, “In the light
of the aforesaid evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that all the three ingredients
(1) Cruelty by husband. (2) Dowry death only, (3) Intentional death of women, necessary to
draw the presumption of commission of the offence under section 304-B, IPC have been
proved and established by the prosecution. Consequently, the presumption under section 113-
B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused and in the absence of any
defence evidence to rebut the same, the Court has to hold the accused guilty of the offence
under section 304-B. IPC. On the basis of the same consideration, the offence under section
498-A must also be held to be proved against the accused persons. We, therefore, have no
hesitation in dismissing the appeal and in affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by
the High Court. So the appeal is dismissed.”
18. It is humbly submitted that our present case is almost similar to the Jagdish Chand v
State of Haryana. In our present case, all the three ingredients (1) Cruelty by husband. (2)
Dowry death only, (3) Intentional death of women, necessary to draw the presumption of
commission of the offence under section 304-B, IPC have been fulfilled and established by
the prosecution.
ISSUE 4. WHETHER SECTION 304B AND SECTION 498A OF IPC,

1860 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
19. It is a humble submission from the side of respondent that the accused is guilty under
Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal code for the dowry death of Kiran Kumari as the
chain of circumstances of the case implies to the fulfillment of all the necessary conditions
required for dowry death. The conditions include Death of a woman should be caused by

PAGE 20
burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, Death should have
occurred within seven years of her marriage, The woman must have been subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, Cruelty or harassment should be
for or in connection with the demand for dowry, Cruelty or harassment should have been
meted out to the woman soon before her death; all which have been been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
4.1. Section 304B of IPC is constitutional.
20. It is humbly submitted that marriages are made in heaven indeed, but mothers-in-law,
sisters-in-law, husbands and other relatives are being increasingly involved in the breaking of
the wedlock for the lust of dowry. Dowry death, murder-suicide, and bride burning are
becoming symptoms of peculiar social malady and are an unfortunate development of our
social set-up. This development is peculiarly Indian, a "Black Plague" spawned by the dowry
system. During the last few decades India has witnessed the black evils of the dowry system
in a more acute form in almost all parts of the country since it is practised by almost every
section of the society: irrespective of religion, caste or creed to which they belong. It is
almost a matter of day-to-day occurrence that not only married women are harassed,
humiliated, beaten and forced to commit suicide. to leave husband, etc., tortured and ill-
treated but thousands are even burnt to death because parents are unable to meet the dowry
demands of in-laws or their husbands.
21. It is humbly submitted that the law-makers, taking the note of the seriousness and gravity
of the problem of the dowry and its cancerous growth on an unprecedented scale, took
various legislative measures to plug the loopholes in the law as well as to enact new
provisions so as to make the law pragmatic and effective.
22. It is humbly submitted that there are sweeping changes made in the Dowry Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 1984. A new offence called 'Dowry death' has been created by introducing
Section 304-B in the Penal Code. It raised presumption of culpability against the husband or
his relatives unknown to our jurisprudence. It provides that where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns and injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven

PAGE 21
years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty
or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’. The section also provides that
such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death and shall be punished with
imprisonment for a minimum of seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment.``
4.1.1 Ingredients of section 304B.
23. It is humbly submitted that the main ingredients of section 304B IPC are Death of a
woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal
circumstances (not the natural death)(Sarvan Singh Vs. State Of Himachal Pradesh14, Death
should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; the woman must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, Cruelty or harassment should be for or in
connection with the demand for dry or any relative of her husband and the Cruelty or
harassment should have been meted out to the woman before her death.
24. It is humbly submitted that According to clause (1) of section 304B, the death of a
woman will be designated a "dowry death" when it is caused by burns, bodily injury, or
occurs otherwise than in ordinary circumstances and as a result of cruelty, or harassment
caused by her husband or her husbands relations, or in connection with any demand for
dowry. In case of death of a woman caused under the above circumstances, the husband and
the husband's relatives will be presumed to have caused a "dowry death" and be liable for the
offence, unless it is proved otherwise. That is to say, the burden of proof shifts on the part of
the accused to prove his innocence unlike other offences wherein the accused presumed
innocent.15
25. It is humbly submitted that the Apex Court stated in Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana16
that once the prosecution is able to establish the ingredients of dowry death under section
304B. IPC, the burden of proof of innocence shifts on defence.
4.2. Section 498A of IPC is constitutional.
14
AIR 2000 HP 239
15
Kans Raj vs State Of Punjab & Ors, 2000 (3) RI 556
16
AIR 2005 SC 3546

PAGE 22
26. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that dowry which is a deep rooted social
evil appears to be the cause of ever so many unfortunate death of young ladies. It is an
offence brutal and barbaric. It is generally committed inside the house and more often with a
circumstance to give an impression that it was a sucidal death. There will be all found attempt
to cover up such offence by the family members rather than to expose it. The Government
come forward with legislations from time to time to protect women and to punish those who
commit attrocities on them.By the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act, 46 of
1983) Chap XX-A was introduced in the Penal Code with Section 498A creating a new
offence of cruelty. It provide for punishment to husband or his relatives if they harass a
woman with a view to coerce her to meda unlawful demand for property.
27. It is humbly submitted that the Section 113-A has been introduce the Evidence Act, 1872
raising presumption of cruelty as defined under Section 498A, IP.C husband or his relative if
the wife commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. These
provisions reflect the anxiety of the representatives of our people to deal firmly with the
menace of dowry deaths.

PAGE 23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, in the light of the authorities, facts of the case, issues raised and arguments
advanced, it is most respectfully prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiva
that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that
1. The Special Leave Petition filed by Chhotelal is not maintainable.
2. The diary written by Kiran Kumari can be considered as a piece of dying declaration.
3. The judgment of Learned Trial Court and Hon’ble High Court is not erroneous.
4. The section 304B & Section 498A of IPC, 1860 is constitutional.
Or pass any order, direction or relief that may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Prosecution shall forever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel for the

Respondent

PAGE 24

TC - 041 - Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC - 041 - Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1ST LEX EXPLORE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

1ST LEX EXPOLRE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. CHOTELAL (APPELLANTS)

UNION OF INDIVA (RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ARB ARBITRATION CASES

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCR/ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SERIAL NAME OF THE CASE CITATION PAGE

AIR 1950 SC 169

Chikkarange Gowda v State of Mysore AIR 1956 SC 731

4. Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra vs K.S. AIR 1960 SC 45 16

5. Uttam vs State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576 16

6. Ulka Ram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 1814 16

7. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443 17

9. Prabhash Sharma & Anr. vs State CRL.A.No.5/2002 18

11. State of Gujarat v. RabriPanchaPunja CriLj. 1981 19

12. Sudhakar Singh vs State CRIMINAL APPEAL 19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

NO. 240/1998, Delhi

16. Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 3546 24

1. The Constitution Of India, 1950.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1862.

4. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, V.N. SHUKLA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

2. BATUKLAL’S THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, K.D. GAUR (7TH Ed.)

4. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL’S THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

2. www.judis.nic.in (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

4. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)

5. www.westlaw.india.com (WEST LAW INDIA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY CHHOTELAL IS

WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI CAN BE CONSIDERED

WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE

WHETHER SECTION 304B AND SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860 IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY CHHOTELAL

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI CAN BE

ISSUE 3. WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT OF LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 4. WHETHER SECTION 304B AND SECTION 498A OF IPC, 1860 IS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE DIARY WRITTEN BY KIRAN KUMARI

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS