COMMON INDUCTION MOOT 2015, CAMPUS LAW CENTRE

CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AT NEW DELHI

Criminal Application No. __ Of 2014

[APPLICATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anil & Ors.

..APPEALLANT

VERSUS

Union of India

..RESPONDENT

Written Submissions on behalf of the Appellant,

Counsel for the Appellant.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................4
BOOKS:..................................................................................................................................4
CASES:...................................................................................................................................4
WEBSITES:.............................................................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................9
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................14
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................42

Page 2 of 15

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
ed. Edition
p. Page
pp. Pages
No. - Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Supp. Supplement
Vol. Volume
PS Police Station
IPC- Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

Page 3 of 15

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books Referred
Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
The Indian Penal Code; With Commentary by W. R. Hamilton
Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
Cases Referred
1. State of Gujarat vs. Dahyabhai Jasing and Anr. 2007CriLJ249, (2007)1GLR8
2. Per Eyre L.C.B in R. V. Woodcock,(1789) 1 Leach 500.
3. Public prosecutor, A.P. v. Appallaneni haribabu, (1975) 1 Andh WR 304 at pg. 309
4.

Khushalrao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22.

5.

Rachaputi Nageswara Rao @ Nagaraju vs. State of A.P. 2005(2)ALT(Cri)60,

I(2006)DMC410

6. Surinder kumar malhi v. State of H.P. ,1985 Cr.LJ 1436 (HP)

7.

In Kishan lal v. State of Rajasthan 1990 AIR 2269

8.

Kamla v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 374

9.

State v. K Sridhar 2000 Cr LJ 328 (Kant).

Website Referred
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.westlaw.com
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

Page 4 of 15

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The applicant has approached the Honble Supreme Court of India under Article 134 of the
Constitution of India which reads as under:
Article 134: - Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn
for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial
convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or certifies under Article 134A that the
case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court:
Provided that an appeal under sub-clause shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in
that behalf under clause (1) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may
establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.

Page 5 of 15

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Anil and Riya were in a relationship for 5 years before getting married on 15.09.2011. The rosy
picture that Riya had about her marriage soon washed away. Riya was a very well qualified
woman with a degree in B.A and LL.B. In order to financially help Anil, she was giving tuitions
to children and students studying law in their newly rented home in Mukherjee Nagar.

On 15.07.2013 Riya was admitted in the government hospital at 2:00 P.M. with 44% burns. Her
statement was recorded by the head constable of police which is annexed to the problem as
Annexure 1, wherein she stated that she accidentally got the burns due to burning candle. On the
basis of the same FIR was registered.

On the same day, a statement was also recorded by the executive magistrate, which is annexed
to the problem as Annexure 2, after getting the certificate of fitness from the doctor, wherein a
statement similar to her first statement was recorded. She remained in the hospital due to her
fatal burns.

On 23.07.2013, a dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate which is annexed
to the problem as Annexure 3, in presence of Riyas parents and brother, wherein she has
alleged that her husband Anil had set her on fire due to which she received fatal burns.

Riya expired on 14.08.2013 in the hospital and on getting the information the police altered the
FIR into offence under Sections 302, 498A IPC. The doctor confirmed on conducting the postmortem that the cause of death was septicaemia shock due to ante-mortem burns. After necessary
investigations police filed a charge sheet on 3.12.2013 against Anil, his father Shyam Lal, his
mother Radhe Maa and his foster sister Shaina.

The trial court acquitted all the accused in its decision on 08.05.2014, observing that the
prosecution could not prove any case against either of them as there was no evidence inculpating
all four of them beyond reasonable doubt

Aggrieved, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 0056/14 before the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi. The HC in its impugned judgement dated 17.10.2014 convicted the appellant mother,
father and sister under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1956 and
awarded a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a collective fine of Rs.
50,000 and in default to undergo a RI of additional 6 months. The appellant husband Anil was

Page 6 of 15

convicted under Section 302 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1956 and
was awarded imprisonment for life. The decision was on the basis of the evidence produced i.e.
the letter written by Riya to her mother Jamini, the deposition of the neighbour Srinu who
corroborated the presence of Anil during the incident, deposition of Riyas mother Jamini that the
relation between Riya and Anil were strained and the dying declaration made by Riya.

Aggrieved by this order of HC, appellants Anil and his family preferred an Appeal in the SC on
various grounds including material differences in the dying declarations making the dying
declaration self-contradictory and unreliable, hospital records that showed the date of admission
to the hospital to be 15.07.2013 by Saumya and the authenticity of the letter written by Riya to
Jamini.
Relevant portions of the Annexures:ANNEXURE 1 - Statement given to Head Constable 15/07/2013
I married Anil 4 years back during my final year of college. We live in Mukherjee Nagar. My in
laws live separately. I give tuitions to children. Yesterday on 14.07.2013 night around 8 p.m.
there was a power cut. I went to check the circuit box. In the darkness my polyester saree caught
fire from the burning candle and my entire body, chest, hands, face, legs, foot and some parts of
stomach were burnt. I phoned my friend Saumya who brought an ointment and applied it. Not
cured. Today i.e. 15.07.2013 morning at 10 a.m. I came to Government Hospital with the help of
my friend Saumya. Nobody was aware due to rain and wind last night that I was burning.
ANNEXURE 2 Statement given to Executive Magistrate as on 15.07.2013
Yesterday night at around 8 when I went to check the circuit box huge winds were coming. In the
meanwhile my saree caught fire from the burning candle and the flames came out. Likewise my
body got burnt. I live with my husband in Mukherjee Nagar. I alone present when this happened.
There are no disputes between myself and my husband. My husband did not come to house when

Page 7 of 15

I was burnt. He was in office. My friend Saumya brought me to hospital. This happened
unexpectedly. Nobody did this. It was an accident.
ANNEXURE 3 Statement made to Executive Magistrate as on 23.07.2013
I got married to Anil on 15.09.2011. There was a power cut. There was quarrel between me and
my husband. He was unhappy with me. He said he doesnt want me anymore and I have become
a headache for him. While abusing he brought his burning lighter to my polyester saree and set
me on fire. I got burn injuries. My in-laws dont live with us. My husband took water from the
bathroom and poured water on me. Srinu, next door neighbor came there and helped putting the
flames off. No neighbour came except Srinu. My husband requested Srinu not to reveal anything
about the incident to anyone as it would bring bad name to our family. He arranged some
medicines and injections. My in-laws came from Gurgaon. On 15.07.2013 they took me to a
private hospital in morning. Around 12 noon on 16.07.2013 they brought me on cot to
government hospital but thereafter none of them could be found. Earlier, I made a statement
before the police that my husband and in-laws narrated to me. I dont remember who all were
there during my first statement. Previously, the police and magistrate did not take the statement
forcibly from me.
ANNEXURE 4- Letter written by Riya to her Mother on 17.12.2012
I tired alot ...Anil has also changed a lot after marriage. He hardly has time for me. We dont go
on outings anymore and he is always busy in his office. I thought he would support me at least
but instead he says I married you because you because you are from a big family and if your
father could not do just this

much then what is the use of marrying

you.

Now, because of Anils job we have rented a new flat in Mukherjee Nagar as his office was far
off earlier. I am happy here as the life here is peaceful. No more taunts and abuses of Anils
Parents and sister. They do not stay with us but once in a month they keep visiting. I hope
everything gets fine soon. I am trying my best.....

Page 8 of 15

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in concluding the
conviction of the appellant on the basis of dying declaration and other relevant evidences
produced?
2. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in regards to the
conviction of mother, father and sister of Mr. Anil?

Page 9 of 15

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in concluding the
conviction of the appellant on the basis of dying declaration and other relevant evidences
produced?
That the high court by its impugned order stands erred in law by convicting Mr. Anil
under section 302 and 498 A of the IPC, due to the following reasons:

Impugned order of the High Court was on the basis of material evidence produced
on record i.e. dying declaration of the deceased, letter written by the deceased to
her mother, deposition of the neighbor Srinu, deposition of riyas mother which
stands to be not sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

That the Honble High court in its order solely placed reliance on the dying
declaration without paying heed to the statements given by the deceased to the
head constable and executive magistrate.

That the Honble High court in its order didnt place reliance on the ambivalent
statements of the deceased and the contradiction leading thereto.

2. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in regards to the
conviction of mother, father and sister of Mr. Anil?
To quote the relevant parts of the section itself:Section 498 A
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health of the
women....
It is pertinent to note that the section itself demands the cruelty to be in regards so as to
bring any physical or mental damage to the woman, which in the resent case is prima
facie missing. It is also noteworthy according to the facts that the relationship of the
appellant and the deceased were strenuous and that unhappiness wouldnt amount to
cruelty.

Page 10 of 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in concluding the
conviction of the appellant on the basis of dying declaration and other relevant
evidences produced?
That the high court by its impugned order stands erred in law by convicting Mr. Anil
under section 302 and 498 A of the IPC, due to the following reasons:

Impugned order of the High Court was on the basis of material evidence produced
on record i.e. dying declaration of the deceased, letter written by the deceased to
her mother, deposition of the neighbor Srinu, deposition of riyas mother which
stands to be not sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is highly ironical that there is no other evidence available which has been placed
reliance on by the High Court coming to the conclusion of convicting the appellants as
there is no record of any communication between the deceased and her mother after
17/12/2012 till date, there may be change in circumstances, may be things have got better
by the lapse of time, this non-availability of the transaction between the deceased and her
mother, leads to create a reasonable doubt so as to the clear position of the case and
creates ambiguity. High Court stands erred in the consideration of this fact of great
importance.
It is noteworthy that there are material discrepancies in the statements as when the
deceased in her statement to the executive magistrate on 23/07/2013(herein after alleged
dying declaration) stated that: - While abusing he brought his burning lighter to my
polyester saree and set me on fire. I got burn injuries. My in-laws dont live with us. My
husband took water from the bathroom and poured water on me. Srinu, next door
neighbour came there and helped putting the flames off. It is pertinent to note that when
the husband already poured water on the deceased then what was Srinu sawing her from?
This certainly raises suspicion in the minds as to the unambiguity of the statement. Thus,
dying declaration recorded by Doctor created doubt and suspicion and it was difficult to

Page 11 of 15

accept said dying declaration - Moreover, it was extremely improbable that

accused/Dahyabhai went to his house, brought kerosene tin and entered again in house of
deceased and poured kerosene on her - It was also difficult to believe that both of
Accused again entered in house of deceased and poured water on her - If accused really
intended to set deceased on fire, there was no reason for them to come again and pour
water on her - Hence, prosecution did not satisfactorily prove case against
Respondents/Accused and Trial Judge had come to proper conclusion in acquitting
Accused.1

That the Honble High court in its order solely placed reliance on the dying
declaration without paying heed to the statements given by the deceased to the
head constable and executive magistrate.

The general principle on which the species of evidence is admitted is that they are
declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every
hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration to speak truth; a situation so solemn and so
awful is considered to by law as creating an obligation equal to what is imposed by a
positive oath administered in a court of justice.2 Here in this case this is not the situation
as there is no sense of impending death heading towards the deceased at that point of time
which creates a sanction equivalent to an oath. The statements of a deceased person
relating to the cause of his death or the circumstances or the transactions which lead to
the death of the accused are only admissible.3 Also it is pertinent to note that the death of
the deceased was due to septicemia shock leading after ante-mortem burns, and not that
of burn injuries. Septicemia shock is a disease where there is severe infection which leads
to death eventually. This gives a clear indication that there was no impending fear of
death and the statement given to the executive magistrate was true and without coercion.
The second statement given by the deceased is a concocted story framed by the family
1

State of Gujarat vs. Dahyabhai Jasing and Anr. 2007CriLJ249, (2007)1GLR8

Per Eyre L.C.B in R. V. Woodcock, (1789) 1 Leach 500.
3
Public prosecutor, A.P. v. Appallaneni haribabu, (1975) 1 Andh WR 304 at pg. 309
2

Page 12 of 15

members of the deceased so as to take revenge and frame the appellant under the severe
charges so that they can face prosecution.

That the Honble High court in its order didnt place reliance on the ambivalent
statements of the deceased and the contradiction leading thereto.

One of the important principals enumerated in Khushalrao v. State of Bombay4 if that

would have been the case, there are two dying declarations which are not in consonance
with each other "If evidence relied is reasonably capable of two inferences, then one in
favor of accused must be accepted."5 Where the versions contained in the dying
declaration is found to be inconsistent with the actual facts produced, less importance
shall be placed to it.6 In Kishan lal v. State of Rajasthan7 it was held by this Honble court
that where the dying declaration has been delayed and made later, it was not at the time
when there was imminent death expected by the deceased, there was inconsistency in the
two dying declarations inter se and it was held that high court erred in law. Where there
are more than one dying declaration and both are inconsistent with each other, its not
possible to pick out one such statement and base the reliance on it for the conviction of
accused on the basis of it.8
2. Whether the high court by its impugned order stands corrected in regards to the
conviction of mother, father and sister of Mr. Anil?
To quote the relevant parts of the section itself:Section 498 A
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the women to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health of the
women....
It is pertinent to note that the section itself demands the cruelty to be in regards so as to
bring any physical or mental damage to the woman, which in the resent case is prima
4
5
6
7
8

AIR 1958 SC 22.

Rachaputi Nageswara Rao @ Nagaraju vs. State of A.P. 2005(2)ALT(Cri)60, I(2006)DMC410
Surinder kumar malhi v. State of H.P. ,1985 Cr.LJ 1436 (HP)
1990 AIR 2269
Kamla v. Sate of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 374

Page 13 of 15

facie missing. It is also noteworthy according to the facts that the relationship of the
appellant and the deceased were strenuous and that unhappiness wouldnt amount to
cruelty. The material on record produced doesnt suggest more than that, letter of the
deceased to her mother talks about the same. In State v. K Sridhar9, where the prosecution
relied only on the incident of unhappiness of the deceased with her husband and the
allegations was only in form of suggestions, it doesnt establish criminal charges and
hence conviction U/S 498A is improper.
To quote the relevant portions of the letter of the deceased to her mother: - He hardly has time
for me. We dont go on outings anymore and he is always busy in his office. I thought he would
support me at least but instead he says I married you because you because you are from a big
family and if your father could not do just this much then what is the use of marrying you. This
statement is clear indicative of the fact that there was only unhappiness between the deceased
and her husband, and one more point which is worth noticing is that the in-laws if the deceased
didnt live with them, if there was some alleged mental cruelty, it had also come to an end and
only the unhappiness in the relationship exists which is evident by the part of the letter of the
deceased to her mother:Now, because of Anils job we have rented a new flat in Mukherjee Nagar as his office was far
off earlier. I am happy here as the life here is peaceful. No more taunts and abuses of Anils
Parents and sister. They do not stay with us but once in a month they keep visiting. I hope
everything gets fine soon. I am trying my best.

2000 Cr LJ 328 (Kant).

Page 14 of 15

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsels for the
Applicant humbly and forever pray before this Honble Court to kindly:

a) Set aside the impugned order of the High court;

b) Acquit the appellant from all the charges and set them free.

AND/ OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

And for this the Applicant as in duty bound shall forever humbly pray.

(Counsel on behalf of the Applicant)

Page 15 of 15