Prosecution Memo

Supreme Court of India
Case No.: 07/2016
In the matter of
State of Rajasthan
Appellant
versus
Mr. Dinesh Goyal
Respondent No. 1
Mrs. ShaliniGoyal
Respondent No. 2
Mr. Suresh Goyal
Respondent No. 3
Written Memorial submitted on behalf of the Appellant

Counsel on behalf of the Appellant
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

____________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No.
1.
Particulars
Page No.
Index of Authorities
02
A. Books
B. Websites
C. Judicial Decisions
D. Dictionaries & lexicons
2.
Judicial Decisions / Case Law
04
3.
List of Abbreviations used
07
4.
Statement of Jurisdiction
08
5.
Statement of Facts
09
6.
Issues for Consideration
12
7.
Arguments
13
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6
8.
Prayer
39

____________________________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS:
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 21stEdition 2013, Lexus Nexis by
B. M. Prasad, Manish Mohan
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34thEdition 2013, Lexis Nexisby Justice K. T.
Thomas, M. A. Rashid
Criminal Manual (Criminal Major Acts), 2004, Professional Book Publishers, New Delhi
by Justice M. R. Mallick
Texbook on Indian Penal Code, 5th Edition 2015, Universal Law Publishing by K. D. Gaur
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Law on Evidence, 25th Edition, Lexis Nexis by B. M. Prasad,

Manish Mohan
Sarkar on Evidence, Volume 1, 15th Edition 2000, Wadhwa& Company by SudiptoSarkar,

V. R. Manohar
Sarkar on Evidence, Volume 2, 15th Edition 2000, Wadhwa& Company by SudiptoSarkar,

V. R. Manohar
Lawmanns, Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by R. Ramachandran.
STATUTES:
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Criminal ProcedureCode, 1908
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

____________________________________________________________________________________
DICTIONARIES AND LEXICONS:
Websters English Dictionary
Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition
ONLINE RESOURCES:
www.legalpundits.com
www.judis.nic.in
www.indiankanoon.org
www.advocatekhoj.com
www.lawkhoj.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.lawnotes.in
thelawdictionary.org
www.webster-dictionary.org
www.dictionary.reference.com

____________________________________________________________________________________
JUDICIAL DECISIONS / CASE LAW
Sr.
Name of the Case
F.N
No
Page
Citation
No.
Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kumar &Ors
13
AIR 1954 SC 202
Pritam Singh v.The State
13
AIR 1950 SC 169
M/s. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
13
AIR 1959 SC 633
Their Workmen
4
Haryana State Industrial Corpn.v.Cork Mfg. Co
13
(2007) 8 SCC 359
State of AP v. K. Punardana Rao
13
AIR 2004 SC 4194
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana,
13
AIR 2003 SC 2987
N. Suriyakal v. A. Mohandoss
13
(2007) 9 SCC 196
State of Assam v. Barga Dewani
13
(1970) 3 SCC 236
Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir
13
(2008) 13 SCC 17
10
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT
13
AIR 1955 SC 65
11
Mathai v. George and Anr
14
(2010) 4 SCC 358
12
Suryamoorthy v. Govinda Swamy
10
14
(1989) 3 SCC 24
13
Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam
11
14
AIR 1979 SC 1286
14
State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh
12
14
(2002) 3 SCC 234
15
Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar
12
14
(1994) 5 SCC 27
16
Ram Piari v. Bhagwant,
12
14
AIR 1990 SC 1742
17
Haripada Dey v. State of W.B
12
14
AIR 1956 SC 757
18
Nayudu Srihari v. State of Andhra Pradesh
13
14
(1996) 10 SCC 393
19
Michael L. v. Johnson Pumps Ltd
13
14
AIR 1975 SC 661
20
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
13
14
(1987) 1 SCC 124
21
Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai
13
14
(2003) 6 SCC 675
22
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam
15
15
AIR 2005 SC 570
23
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar
17
15
(2005) 6 SCC 211
24
Kathi Raning Rawatv.The State of Saurashtra
18
15
AIR 1952 All 991
25
Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal
18
15
AIR 1963 SC 1039
26
Om Prakash Sood v. Union of India
20
15
(2003) 7 SCC 473
27
Surjan v. State of Rajasthan
22
15
AIR 1956 SC 425
28
Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar
23
15
AIR 2005 SC 3123
29
Imperial Tobacco Co. India Ltd. v. Workmen
23
15
AIR 1962 SC 1348
30
National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Hanuman
23
15
AIR 1968 SC 33
31
Lal Mandi v. State of W.B.
24
15
(1995) 3 SCC 603
32
Maya Devi v. State of Haryana
27
17
(2015) 43 SCD 160

____________________________________________________________________________________
33
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka
28
17
AIR 2001 SC 921
34
V. K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand
29
17
2015 (9) SCC 588
35
Santosh
30
19
AIR 1975 SC 654
36
Bhola Bind
31
19
(1943) 22 pat 607
37
State of Karnataka v. Mallu Kallappa Patil
31
19
AIR 1994 SC 784
38
James v. State of Kerala
32
20
(1995) 1CrLJ55 (Ker)
39
Arundhati
33
20
1968 Cr LJ 848
40
Rattni v. State of H.P.
33
20
1993 Cr LJ 1811 (SC)
41
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra
34
20
AIR 1972 SC 656.
42
Anant Chantman Lagu v. The State of Bombay
35
20
AIR 1960 SC 659
43
Shanmughan v. State of Kerala
36
20
Cri Appeal No. 1157 of

2007
44
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab
37
20
AIR 1988 SC 1011
45
Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
38
22
1992(1)Crimes287(A.P)
46
Hemchand v. State of Haryana
39
22
1994(3)Crimes608(SC)
47
Hans Raj v. State of Punjab
40,46
23
AIR 2000 SC2324
48
Durga Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh
41
23
(2010) 9 SCC 73
49
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana
42
23
(1998) 3 SCC 309
50
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
43
23
AIR 2000 SC 2324
51
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab
44
23
AIR 2001 SC 2828
52
Shanti v. State of Haryana
45
24
AIR 1991 SC 1226
53
Rajayyan v. State of Kerala
47
24
AIR 1998 SC 1211
54
Gananath Pattnaik v. State Of Orissa
49
25
(2002) 2 SCC619 Para7
55
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa
50
25
2002 SCC (Cri) 461
56
Mohd.Hoshan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
51
25
AIR 2002 SC 3270
57
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh
52
25
AIR 1991 SC 1532
58
Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar
53
26
AIR 2001 SC 2124
59
PrakashKaur v Harjideperal
54
26
AIR 1996 SC 189
60
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi
54
26
AIR 1988 SC 121
61
55
26
AIR 1998 SC 958
62
Satpals Case
56
26
(1998) 5 SCC 687
63
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh
57
26
1990 CrLJ562,571( SC)
64
State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh
58
26
1992(2)Crimes926(P&H)
65
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana
59
27
AIR 1989 SC 378
66
Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan
60
27
(1998) Cr LJ 554 (Raj)
67
Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State
61
27
AIR 1997 SC 1830
68
Sujatna Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar
62
27
AIR 1997 SC 2465

____________________________________________________________________________________
69
G.S.Barooa v. Kanwaljit Singh
63
28
1989 CriLJ 423, 500
70
Y.K.Bansal v. Anju
64
28
(All LJ 914)
71
65
28
AIR 1998 SC 958
72
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa
66
29
(AIR 2004 SCW 1566)
73
Thakhan Jha v. State of Bihar
67
29
(2004)13 SCC 348
74
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
68
30
AIR 2010 SC 2839
75
Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab
69
30
AIR 2009 SC 1454
76
Raman v. State
70
30
2009 Cr LJ 3034 (SC)
77
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka
71
30
AIR 2001 SC 921
78
Rameshwar v. State of Punjab
72
30
2008 Cr LJ 1400 (SC)
79
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana
73
31
AIR 2005SC 3546
80
State of Karnataka v. M. V. Manjunathegowda
74
31
AIR 2003 SC 809
81
Bhola Ram v. State of Punjab
75
31
2014 (0) AIR (SC) 241
82
Hira Lal v. State
76
31
(2003) 8 SCC 80
83
Ramesh Vithal Patil v. State of Karnataka
77
32
(2014) 11 SCC 516
84
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh
78
32
AIR 1991 SC 1532
85
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh
79
33
AIR 1990 SC 209
86
State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar
80
33
1992 Cr LJ 3131 (P&H)
87
81
33
AIR 1998 SC 958
88
Krishnan v. State of Karnataka
82
35
AIR 2003 SC 2978
89
Rajesh v. State
83
35
(1999) 8 SCC 928
90
Pradeep Kumar v. Union Admn
84
36
(2006) 10 SCC 608
91
Paniben v. State of Gujarat
85
37
MR 1992 SC 1817
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sr. No.
Abbreviation
Full Form
1.
v.
2.
AIR
ALL INDIA REPORTER
3.
CrLJ
CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
4.
CrPC
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
5.
Honble
6.
IPC
INDIAN PENAL CODE
7.
Pg
PAGE
8.
SC
SUPREME COURT
9.
Supra
10.
Volume
VOLUME
11.
ETC
ETCETRA
12.
SCR
SUPREME COURT REPORT
13.
No.
NUMBER
14.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
15.
IEA
Indian Evidence Act
VERSUS
HONOURABLE
AS MENTIONED ABOVE

____________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel for Appellant has approached this Honble Supreme Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the judgement of the High Court of Rajasthan
acquitting the accused persons.

____________________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
1. Mr. Suresh Goyal, son of Shri Dinesh Goyal an industrialist and high profile person
living in Goyal House, was studying for MBA in a well known university.
2. Miss Sharda Gupta, daughter of ShriVikram Gupta, a businessman, was also studying
in MBA in the same College as that of Shri Suresh Goyal. Both were in the same class.
3. Both Mr. Suresh Goyal and Miss. Sharda Gupta met in college and fell in love.
4. At the insistence of Suresh Goyal, Shri Dinesh Goyal approached ShriVikram Gupta
asking for his daughter in marriage to his son as they knew each other through the
Ashok Club.
5. But Shri Dinesh Goyal demanded dowry which was of substantial value in accordance
to his social status and to spend a minimum of Rs. 1 Crore on the wedding apart from
the dowry. Shri. Vikram Gupta accepted all the terms and conditions.
6. The marriage was performed on 17.07.2012 and the agreed dowry was paid to the
Goyal family. However, after marriage Mrs. ShardaGoyal did not receive proper
treatment from her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law. Smt. ShaliniGoyal
was making dowry demands for Mercedes Benz Classic Car and for a fixed deposit of
Rs. 1 Crore. A fixed deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs was given in the name of Mrs.
ShardaGoyal.
7. With mental disturbance and a non-conducive atmosphere Mrs. ShardaGoyal could not
conceive. Her relations with her husband became strained. Her mother-in-law
threatened her to give birth to a baby boy, within one year, else she would be thrown
out and she would re-marry her son.Mrs. ShardaGoyal gave birth to a baby girl, but the
Goyal family was not happy. She was taunted, cursed and sent to parental house. Mrs.
ShardaGoyal was maintaining a detailed daily diary noting every incident minutely.
8. Relationship between ShardaGoyal and her husband continued to be estranged due to
demand of dowry and excessive drinking of Suresh Goyal who started abusing and
beating in the presence of servants.
10

____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Goyal family planned and accordingly Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased organo
phosphorous on 24.5.2015 sold under the trade name of NUVAN from Shri Sanjay
Kumar (PW-1) a shopkeeper on the pretext that he required the same to kill flies.
10. On 25.5.2015, Smt. ShardaGoyals, mother-in-law forcibly administered poison to kill
her. Her son also held the body of the deceased and forced her to drink. During the
course of administration of poison deceased struggled as such sustained injuries on her
face, lips and neck.
11. ShriSurendra Kumar (PW-2), a servant heard the cries of the deceased and extreme
weeping of her child. The deceased was crying Give me salty water. I do not want to
die. Two other servants ShriVedPrakash (PW-3), and Shri Om Prakash (PW-4),
reached on the spot and smelt poisonous odour in the room.
12. The deceased was lying on the bed having injuries on her face. Water was splashed on
the bed as well as on the floor of the room. The clothes of the deceased were also
drenched. Deceased was crying that she did not want to die and that she be saved.
13. Shri Om Prakash requested Shri Dinesh Goyal and Suresh Goyal to take the deceased
to the hospital immediately. The accused replied that there was no necessity and that
deceased would be all right very soon.
14. In the meantime Shri Anil Kumar (PW-5), and Shri Shiv Kumar (PW-6), relatives of
the deceased also arrived. They noticed the condition of the room and the deteriorating
condition of the deceased. When they enquired what had happened, the accused said
that it was his private life and they need not bother. The accused refused to take the
deceased to the hospital on the pretext that nothing had happened and he himself being
father-in-law could look after her.
15. Both PW-5 and PW-6 also smelt poisonous odour in the room. On being asked what
had happened, she raised her hand towards the accused Shri Dinesh Goyal and Mrs.
ShaliniGoyal.
16. Om Prakash (PW-4) informed the police at about 4.30 a.m. of the incident and Biru
Ahmad (PW-7), entered the information in the daily diary and proceeded towards the
spot. He found the deceased lying on the bed in an unconscious position.
11

____________________________________________________________________________________
17. Dr. O. P. Choudhary (PW-8) examined the deceased at about 6 a.m. and noted the
patient was semi-conscious with history of consumption of poisonous substance. He
also noted contusion reddish in colour over the lateral side of her right eye brow with
swelling present, both lips were swollen.
18. PW-8 administered the initial treatment. He carried out Gastric Lavage first with
saline solution and then with ordinary tap water. Thereafter he referred the deceased at
S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur which was informed to the police. She later died at the
Hospital.
19. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila (PW-9), in association with Dr. V. K.
Mishra, Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine. As to the cause of death it was opined
that the deceased had died due to asphyxia secondary to the organo-phosphorus
poison.
20. On coming to know that his daughter has been taken to Hospital, ShriVikram Gupta
(PW10), father of the deceased came to the hospital and on the same day he also
lodged a report at the Police Station mentioning the harassment caused by the three
accused to the deceased for dowry. He stated that all the three accused namely Shri
Dinesh Goyal, Smt. Shalini Goyal and Shri Suresh Goyal had forcibly administered
poison with intention to kill his daughter for non-fulfilment of further demand of
dowry.
21. After the death of the deceased the police found the diary which was exhibited and
relied on for domestic violence & dowry demand.
12

____________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Whether the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136
of the Constitution of India, 1950 is admissible?
2) Whether the accused persons can be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code for the murder of the deceased?
3) Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for
causing dowry-death of the deceased?
4) Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for
abetment to suicide?
5) Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for
acts done by them in furtherance of common intention?
6) Whether the crime is of a heinous nature and has substantial social implications that
exemplary punishment has to be awarded to the accused so as to serve as a deterrent to
others?
13

____________________________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
Whether the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 is admissible?
It is submitted that the special leave petition filed by the Prosecution against the impugned
order of the High Court of Rajasthan is maintainable. The special leave petition is
maintainable since the Honble Supreme Court is empowered with discretionary power1
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,1950 to hear the present matter because the
High Court of Rajasthan has erred while deciding the present case.
It is submitted that Article 1362 confers discretionary appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme
Court against any order passed by any court in the territory of India.3 The jurisdiction
conferred under the said Article on the Supreme Court is a corrective one and not a restrictive
one.4Further, when the judgment of the High court has led to serious miscarriage of justice,
this court may not refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering merely because the
power has been invoked by a private party, and not by the state in criminal cases.5 A duty has
been enjoined by the Supreme Court to exercise its powers by setting right the illegality in the
judgments. It is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure
by the Supreme Court to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetrated.6
Discretionary power is exercised when there is a grave failure and miscarriage of justice to
one party7 or a question of law having general public importance arises8
In Mathai v. George and Anr,9this court had observed that a case shall be entertained by the
Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kumar &Ors., AIR 1954 SC 202

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950.

Pritam Singh v.The State, AIR 1950 SC 169; M/s. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceu cal Works Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 633

Haryana State Industrial Corpn.v.Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.

DD BASU, COMMENTRY ON THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 5897 (8th ed. 2009); State of AP v. K. Punardana Rao,
AIR 2004 SC 4194; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 2987.

H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed. 2010)

N. Suriyakal v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196; State of Assam v. Barga Dewani, (1970) 3 SCC 236.

Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17; Dhakeswari Co on Mills Ltd. v. CIT,
AIR 1955 SC 65.
14

____________________________________________________________________________________
court under Art.136 if a grave miscarriage of justice has been done. Also, if the High Court, in
arriving at the findings, has acted perversely10 or otherwise improperly11and shown to have
completely failed in appreciating the true effects of the material brought on record12and which
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice,13the Supreme Court is conferred with power under
Art. 136 to adjudicate on the matter14
In the present case, there has been a grave injustice caused to the family of the deceased, the
accused have also ignored the law that was put in place to prevent the atrocity of Dowry
death. The High Court of Rajasthan while ignoring the true value of the facts of the case
acquitted the accused. Every fact in the case points out that the accused persons had
traumatized the deceased for the purpose of dowry to an extent that she was sent back to her
house. It is evident as per her personal diary as she used to write about every event in detail.
Also the refusal of the family members to take the deceased to the hospital even after the
servants requested them to, shows that the High Court ignored all the essential facts of the
case and acted perversely and acquitted the accused persons.
In light of the judgment by the High Court and the substantial injustice it caused not just to
the family of the deceased but also to the public interest at large we humbly submit to the
Honble Supreme Court that it invokes its discretionary jurisdiction to hear and try the matter,
in the interest of Justice to the deceased, the family of the deceased and the public at large.
The Court under Art.136 is free to adjudicate matters on question of fact, in order to remove
the defects of the case and provide proper justice.15 As even on the question of fact, wrong
question leads to a wrong answer. In such cases, errors of fact can be the subject matter of
Suryamoorthy v. Govinda Swamy, (1989) 3 SCC 24.

Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam, AIR 1979 SC 1286.

State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 234; Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1994) 5 SCC 27; Ram Piari v.
Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742; Haripada Dey v. State of W.B., AIR 1956 SC 757.

Nayudu Srihari v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 10 SCC 393; Michael L. v. Johnson Pumps Ltd., AIR 1975 SC
661; Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 124; Surya Devi Rai v. Ram ChanderRai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.

ARVIND P. DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 846 (2nd ed. 2010).
15

____________________________________________________________________________________
judicial review under Art.136.16 Further, it is open to this court to interfere with the findings of
the fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise
improperly.17
The Supreme Court is not precluded from going into the question of facts under Art.136, if it
considers it necessary to do so.18 Art.136 uses the wording in any cause or matter. This gives
widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter.19 It is plain that when the Supreme
Court reaches the conclusion that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or
tribunal has not given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind like the
finality of finding of facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this power.20
Hence, the petition is maintainable under Art. 136.
It is submitted that when a person has been dealt arbitrarily, this court has to allow the appeal
under Art.136,21 which involves High Court acting perversely22while appreciating the facts or
evidence put forth23 Also, where the consideration of evidence by High Court is not proper
then the Supreme Court can interfere in fact finding in a criminal case.24 We can conclude that
the High Court has erred while deciding the present case.
a) The Honble Trial Court and the Honble High Court have not been able to evaluate
and consider the case in a proper way in light of all the facts thereby resulting in
erroneous judgments and a miscarriage of justice.
CHOLAN CASE, Id.

Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211.

Kathi Raning Rawat v.The State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 All 991; Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal AIR 1963 SC
1039.

PRITAM CASE, supra note 3.

Om PrakashSood v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 473 [hereina er as OM PRAKASH CASE].

PRITAM CASE, supra note 3.

DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 1275 (7th ed. 2008); Surjan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC
425.

Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123; Imperial Tobacco Co. India Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1962 SC
1348; Na onal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Hanuman, AIR 1968 SC 33.

LalMandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603.
16

____________________________________________________________________________________
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that, whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Upon a simple reading of this section we can safely infer that the minimum punishment
awarded for the crime of murder25 is that of death or imprisonment for life along with a
compulsory fine.
In the present case the Honble Trial Court has convicted Accused No.1 (Shri Dinesh Goyal.)
under Section 30226 and had awarded a punishment of just 7 years imprisonment and no fine.
This shows a complete err in judgement which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Out of
the other accused viz., Accused No.2 (the mother-in-law, Smt. ShaliniGoyal) and Accused
No.3 (husband of the deceased, Suresh Goyal) the mother-in-law has been acquitted for want
of direct evidence and the fact that she is a woman, while the husband as he is a youth of 30
years of age.
A cursory perusal of the statement of facts itself makes it amply clear that all the ingredients
under S. 113-A and S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1890 are fulfilled and the Court is
required to presume the crime and onus for proving the innocence rests solely on the defence
counsel.
It has been seen time and again that in matters pertaining to dowry death and abetment to
suicide in dowry related cases, the act is committed within the confines of the four walls of
the house and often the plan is hatched and executed in complete secrecy with no other
witness other than the accused and the deceased. Direct evidence, therefore, can be rare and
the case is often established on the basis of circumstantial evidence and by establishing the
chain link in the sequence of events.
The reason cited by the Trial Court for acquitting the husband of the deceased being youth of
30 years seems almost silly as age is of little consequence (once an individual becomes a
major) and there are instances of heinous crimes committed by young individuals.
Sec on 300 of the Indian Penal Code,1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860
17

____________________________________________________________________________________
Even the judgment of Honble High Court appears to be misplaced and misconceived. The
Honble Court has stated that the circumstances (of the case) are not of conclusive nature
and chain of circumstances is not complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the
accused. The Honble High Court has failed to appreciate that in dowry related deaths, there
is no need for evidence to be of conclusive nature especially when ingredients of S. 113-A and
S. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1890 are fulfilled. The circumstances do not need to prove
unerringly to the guilt of the accused and in fact the Court presumes the guilt of the accused
inn such instances and the onus is on the defence counsel to prove the innocence unerringly
and with no doubt.
In the recent case of Maya Devi v. State of Haryana27, the Apex Court was of the opinion that
the victim suffered death at her matrimonial home otherwise than under normal
circumstances, within seven years of marriage and the case squarely falls within the ambit of
dowry death. The harassment of the deceased was with the view to coerce her to convince her
parents to meet the demands for dowry. All the above factors clearly established the legal
requirements for an offence falling under S. 304-B and S. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 with the aid of S. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against the appellants and the
conviction and sentence was upheld.
In Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka28, the Court has a statutory compulsion to
presume dowry death merely on establishment of the above facts. The burden to disprove the
same is on the alleged accused. If the accused fails to rebut the presumption, the Court is
bound to act on it.
In V. K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand29the Court held that in case demand for dowry is
alleged, such demands are confined to the four walls of the house and known only to the
members of both sides of the family. In such cases, independent and direct evidence with
regard to occurrence is ordinarily not available.
In the instant case, the Honble Court failed to act. Thus, the submission of the counsel for
appellant is that both the Trial Court as well as the Honble High Court have been unable to
(2015) 43 SCD 160

AIR 2001 SC 921

2015 (9) SCC 588
18

____________________________________________________________________________________
assess and consider the case in the proper light and hence the whole case needs to be
reconsidered keeping all the facts of the case in perspective and judgment be passed in the
light of this fresh assessment.
ISSUE 2
Whether the accused persons can be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
the murder of the deceased?
Murder.Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
19

____________________________________________________________________________________
(Secondly) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
(Thirdly) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or
(Fourthly) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Ingredients:
a) Intention of causing death.
b) done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused
c) injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death
d) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act
A knowledge that the natural and probable consequences of an act would be death
will suffice for a conviction under S.302, I.P.C30
Where a man intentionally kills another, or intentionally inflicts bodily injury sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, his act is murder.31
In James v. State of Kerala32it was held that Intention to cause death may be revealed by the
whole circumstances of the story.
Where it is proved that the accused administered poison the accused must be presumed to
have knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.33
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra34In a case of death by poisoning it is only when the motive
is there and it is proved that the deceased died of the poison in question that the accused had
Santosh,1975 Cr LJ 602 : AIR 1975 SC 654; See also Sheaj Ra, 1983 Cr LJ 993 (SC) : AIR 1983 SC 614 : (1983) 3
SCC 280.

Bhola Bind, (1943) 22 pat 607. State of Karnataka v. Mallu Kallappa Pa l, AIR 1994 SC 784.

(1995) 1 Cr LJ 55 (Ker)

Arundha , 1968 Cr LJ 848, Ra ni v. State of H.P., 1993 Cr LJ 1811 (SC)
20

____________________________________________________________________________________
that poison in his possession and that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the
deceased that the Court can infer that the accused administered the poison to the deceased
resulting in his death.
Anant Chantman Lagu v. The State of Bombay35their Lordships held that in a cause of
poisoning, the prosecution must establish: (a) that the death took place by poisoning; (h) that
the accused had the poison in his possession; and (c) that the accused had an opportunity to
administer the poison to the deceased. All the three requirements are satisfied in this case.
In Shanmughan v. State of Kerala36, the Honble Supreme Court held that if circumstantial
evidence, in the absence of direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive that the court can
unhesitatingly hold that the death was a result of administration of Poison and that the Poison
must have been administered by the accused persons, then the conviction can be rested on it.
In Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab37, the Honble Supreme Court held that We do not
consider that there should be acquittal on the failure of the prosecution to prove the possession
of poison with the accused .Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover and
cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another in the presence of others. The
person who administers poison to another in secrecy will not keep the portion of it for the
investigating officer to come and collect it. The person who commits such murder would
naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against him. In such cases, it would
be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused. The
prosecution may, however, establish other circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused. The court then would not be justified in acquitting theaccused on
the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove possession of poison with the
accused.(Emphasis supplied)
In the present case the deceased was subjected to humiliation and harassment by way of
demanding dowry and taunts on account of not being able to satisfy the husbands families
thirst for Dowry. Not to mention the need for a boy child which the deceased was unable to
deliver and instead delivered a girl child.
On that fateful day the entire Goyal family conspired to murder the deceased and as such Mr.
Dinesh Goyal procured the organo-phosporus poison from the store and with the help of the
other two accused held the deceased and forced fed her the poison. The servants could hear
the deceased scream that she did not want to die.
There is no room for doubt of the Honble Court that the three accused had knowledge that
the natural and probable cause of forcefully administering organo-phosporus poison would
lead to the death of the deceased. Also the entire story from procurement of the poison to the
post mortem report which clearly states that the deceased died of the said poison infers
AIR 1960 SC 659

Cri Appeal No. 1157 of 2007.

AIR 1988 SC 1011.
21

____________________________________________________________________________________
nothing but that the accused had an intention to murder the deceased by way of poisoning her
and committed the crime in furtherance of this intention.
ISSUE 3
Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for
causing dowry-death of the deceased?
A reading of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 clearly shows that if a married
woman dies otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassmentby her
husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry, such death shall
be called a dowry death and such a husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the
death.
22

____________________________________________________________________________________
Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry
related deaths, legislature thought it wise to insert a provision relating to presumption of
dowry death ( S. 113B Evidence Act) on proof of certain essentials.
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows, when the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before
her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused
the dowry death.
In Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh38, the court held that once there is a
demand for dowry and death occurs within 7 years after the marriage, the presumption under
Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to be drawn. It was held that the accused is liable for
the offence punishable under Section 304-B of India Penal Code, 1860.
In Hemchand v. State of Haryana39, the Supreme Court held that when a question arises
whether a person has committed the offence of dowry death of a woman all that is necessary
is it should be shown that soon before her unnatural death which took place within seven years
of the marriage, the deceased had been subjected, by such person, to cruelty or harassment for
or in connection with demand for dowry. If that is shown then the court shall presume that
such a person has caused the dowry death.
It can therefore be seen that irrespective of the fact whether such person is directly
responsible for the death of the deceased or not, by virtue of the presumption, he is deemed to
have committed the dowry death if there was such cruelty or harassment and that if the
unnatural death has occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage.
The Honourable Supreme Court of India pronounced inHans Raj v. State of Punjab40that the
conditions precedent for establishing an offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code
read with section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act are as follows:
a) That a married woman died otherwise other than under normal circumstances.
1992(1) Crimes 287 (A.P)
1994(3) Crimes 608(SC)

AIR 2000 SC2324
23

____________________________________________________________________________________
b) Such death was within seven years of marriage.
c) That there was cruelty and harassment.
d) That such cruelty and harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry.
e) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
In Durga Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh41, it has been held that the above ingredients need
to be fulfilled to hold an accused guilty of an offence under S. 304-B. Only then such death be
called dowry death and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death
of the woman concerned.
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana42, it has been held that if the above conditions exist, it
would constitute a dowry death and the husband and his relatives shall be deemed to have
caused her death. Courts have held a similar view in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab43 and Satvir
Singh v. State of Punjab44.
[a] That the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances
In Shanti v. State of Haryana45, the Supreme Court held that where the death occurred under
unnatural circumstances, it is immaterial whether it was the result of a suicide or homicide.
Even assuming that it is a case of suicide, even then it would be death amounting to dowry
death under Section 304-B.
In Hans Raj v. State of Punjab46, the Apex Court held that the term normal circumstances
apparently means not the natural death.
(2010) 9 SCC 73
(1998) 3 SCC 309

AIR 2000 SC 2324

AIR 2001 SC 2828

AIR 1991 SC 1226

2000 (3) Supreme 554 (SC); AIR 2000 SC 2324; (2000) DMC 645 SC; JT 2000 (5) SC 223; 2000 Cr LJ 2993
24

____________________________________________________________________________________
In Rajayyan v. State of Kerala47, it was observed that death otherwise than in normal
circumstances would mean that the death was not in the usual course but apparently under
suspicious circumstances if it was not caused by burn or bodily injury. Death of a woman by
suicide occurring within 7 years of marriage cannot be described as occurring in normal
circumstances.
In the present case the death of the deceased has occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances. The cause of death of the deceased was opined to be asphyxia secondary to the
organo phosphorus poisoning.
[b] Such death was within seven years of marriage.

The facts clearly state that the deceased got married to Accused No. 3 on 17.07.2012 and that
she died on 26.05.2015. Thus it clearly shows she died within seven years of marriage.
[c] That the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by Accused No.1, 2 and 3at
any point of time
The Meaning of Cruelty or Harassment is the same as prescribed in the explanation to 498-A
under which cruelty by itself amounts to an offence.48
According to S.498 A, cruelty is
1. Any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.
2. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view of coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
in on account of failure by her or any other person related to her to meet such demand.
Cruelty is not confined to physical cruelty but also includes mental cruelty.
Mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the
AIR 1998 SC 1211
V.K.Dewan, Law rela ng to oences against woman, orient law house( 2nd edi on) 102
25

____________________________________________________________________________________
degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty.
Offences against women have mostly been committed within four walls of her house which
means direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by husband or relatives
is not available. So the court can take various factors or circumstances into consideration as
the dying declaration of the woman, motive, place, mental cruelty, demand of dowry if any,
conduct of the husband.
The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on
various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background,
the environment, education etc.
In GananathPattnaik v. State of Orissa49, it was held by the Supreme Court that the word
cruelty occurring in S.498-A, does not mean physical cruelty alone but also includes
mental torture, abnormal behavior and harassment.
In Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa50, the Court has stated that cruelty for the purposes of
constituting the offence under Section 498-A need not be physical. Even mental torture or
abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment.
InMohd.Hoshan v. State of Andhra Pradesh51, it was observed that mental cruelty varies from
person to person depending upon the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or
endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. Each case has to be decided on its own facts, to
decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not.
In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh52, it was observed thatwhen the question arises as to whether
the accused had committed cruelty, the court will consider cumulative effect of all the
circumstances including the conduct of the accused, relation between the parties, time, place
or manner in which the incident took place etc.
In Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar53, it was observed that the words cruelty denotes a state of
conduct which is distressing to another. So any conduct of husband to wife which is
distressing for her is held to be cruelty.
(2002) 2 SCC 619 Para 7

2002 SCC (Cri) 461
AIR 2002 SC 3270

AIR 1991 SC 1532

AIR 2001 SC 2124
26

____________________________________________________________________________________
In Prakash Kaur v Harjideperal54, it was held that demand for dowry is by itself an act of
cruelty.
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana55, the bride was subjected to repeated demands for
various articles by way of dowry. She was also taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured. The
Court said that cruelty includes both mental as well as physical cruelty.
In Satpals Case56, a case of death of a young wife within 7 years of her marriage by
consuming aluminum phosphate in absence of sufficient evidence to establish the charge
under section 306 and 304-B there being convincing evidence that the deceased had been
humiliated and treated with humility on some occasions by her husband and his mother,
conviction of her husband was upheld.
In the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh57, the circumstantial evidence showed that the
wife was compelled to take the extreme step of committing suicide as the accused persons had
subjected her to cruelty by constant taunts and maltreating.
In State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh58, where it was proved that the mother-in-law and
sister-in-law were taunting the woman for bringing less dowry and having given birth to a
female child thereby driving her to commit suicide, the Court held that it would amount to
dowry death.
In Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana59, the court held that harassment for dowry is also cruelty.
When repeated demands for dowry articles and money on newly married wife and on her
parents had been made and the wife stated in dying declaration about much demands after her
marriage till her death, the husband and the mother-in-law were held guilty under Section
498-A.
In Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan60, The High Court held that when there were repeated
demands for dowry and harassment was meted out, both mental and physical, it is not
AIR 1996 SC 189; Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121
AIR 1998 SC 958; 2001 Cr LJ 1679
(1998) 5 SCC 687

1990 CrLJ 562, 571( SC)
1992 (2) Crimes 926 (P & H)

AIR 1989 SC 378; (1989) 1 SCC 244; 1989 SCC(Cri) 105; 1989 Cr LJ 809
27

____________________________________________________________________________________
necessary that the husband or his relatives must be always present at the time when the wife
was subjected to cruelty. If their conduct either by commission or omission is of such a nature
which results in mental and physical harassment, it will amount to cruelty.
Similar views were also held in the following cases:
a. Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State61

b. Sujatna Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar62
In the present case it is humbly submitted that the source of such mental cruelty can be
inferred from the fact:
1. That the deceased did not receive proper treatment from her mother-in-law,
sister-in-law and also the father-in-law.
2. That Accused No.2 was continuously making dowry demands for a Mercedes Benz
Classic Car and for a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Crore.
3. That the deceaseds relationship with her husband became strained since she could not
conceive.
4. That the deceased was threatened by her mother-in-law to give birth to a baby boy
within one year, else she would be thrown out and she would re-marry her son.
5. That the deceased was cursed, rebuked and sent to her parental home after she gave
birth to a baby girl.
6. That the husband of the deceased used to drink in excess and started beating and
abusing her in the presence of servants.
[d] Accused No. 1, 2 and 3 made demands that were in connection with a demand for
dowry
According to section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
The term dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectlya) By one party to a marriage to the other party to marriage or
b) By the parents of either party to the marriage or any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any person at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
AIR 1997 SC 1830; (1997) 9 SCC 338

AIR 1997 SC 2465
28

____________________________________________________________________________________
with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mehr in cases of
persons to persons to whom Muslim personal law applies.
Thus there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the
time of marriage and the third is at any time after the marriage. The third occasion may
appear to be an unending period but the crucial words are in connection with the marriage of
the said parties. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security
during any of the above three stages should be in connection with the marriage of the
parties.
In G.S.Barooa v. Kanwaljit Singh63, it was held that demand of dowry is equal to taking of
dowry.
In Y.K.Bansal v. Anju64, it was held that dowry means any property given or agreed to be
given by the parents of a party to the marriage at the time of the marriage or before marriage
or in any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage.
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana65, the Supreme Court held under section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act 1961 that an agreement for dowry is not always necessary.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa66, the Supreme Court did not restrict dowry to
a mere agreement or demand at the time of marriage or before the marriage but also included
a demand made subsequent to the marriage.
In the present case Accused No.1 demanded a dowry of substantial value, commensurate with
his social status and to spend a minimum of Rs. 1 Crore on the wedding apart from dowry.
The agreed dowry was paid to the entire satisfaction of the Goyal family. Later on after the
marriage, Accused No.2 was continuously making dowry demands for Mercedes Benz Classic
Car and for a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. Hence we see that demands for dowry were made
before marriage, at the time of marriage as well as after the marriage.
1989 CriLJ 423, 500

(All LJ 914)

AIR 1998 SC 958

AIR 2004 SCW 1566
29

____________________________________________________________________________________
[e] Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death
The expressions soon before does not mean immediately before. It implies that the interval
between the two events should be such there remains a proximate and live link between them.
This has to be determined by the court on the facts and circumstances of each case.67
Soon before is very relevant and it has to be shown that soon before the occurrence there
was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. It is a relative term and
it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid
down as to what would constitute a period soon before the occurrence. It would normally
imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and
the death in question. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of
cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally
referred to as course of conduct which may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or
harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be soon
before death.
In Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana68, the Apex Court held that the expression soon before
her death cannot be given a restricted or narrower meaning. They must be understood in their
plain language and with reference to their meaning in common parlance. These are the
provisions relating to human behaviour and therefore cannot be given such a narrower meaning
which would defeat the very purpose of the provisions of this Section.
In Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab69, the legislative object in providing such a radius of time by
employing the words soon before her death is to emphasize the idea that her death should, in
all probabilities, has been the aftermath of such cruelty or harassment. In other words, there
should be reasonable if not direct nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that all the ingredients of the presumption under Section
113-A of IEA, 1972 are fulfilled.
In Raman v. State70, the Court reiterated that the presumption under S. 113-B is a presumption
Thakhan Jha v. State of Bihar (2004)13 SCC 348
AIR 2010 SC 2839; (2010) 12 SCC 350

AIR 2009 SC 1454, 2009 AIR SCW 928; (2008) 16 SCC 155
30

____________________________________________________________________________________
of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the Court to
raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.
As has been held in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka71, the Court has a statutory
compulsion to presume dowry death merely on establishment of the above facts. The burden
to disprove the same is on the alleged accused. If the accused fails to rebut the presumption,
the Court is bound to act on it.
In Rameshwar v. State of Punjab72, Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana73 and State of Karnataka v.
M. V. Manjunathegowda74, the Court held that once the prosecution has established the
ingredients of a dowry death under Section 304-B, IPC, the burden of proof of innocence shifts
on defence.
To what extent is each of the family members liable?

Every member of the family of the deceased, with whom she had been living before her death
has the burden to prove his or her innocence. In Bhola Ram v. State of Punjab75, the Court held
that in a case of dowry death, every member of the family may not be fully and equally guilty
the degree of involvement may differ as an associate, as a silent witness, as a conniving
witness and so on.
In Hira Lal v. State76, the Apex Court held that crimes that lead to dowry deaths are almost
invariably committed within the safe precincts of a residential house. The criminal is a
member of the family; other members of the family are either guilty associates in crime or
silent but conniving witnesses to it. In any case, the shackles of the family are so strong that
truth may not come out of the chains. There would be no other eye witnesses except for
members of the family.
AIR 2001 SC 921; (2001) 2 SCC 577;

2008 Cr LJ 1400 (SC)

AIR 2005 SC 3546

(2003) 2 SCC 188 (189); AIR 2003 SC 809

2014 AIR (SC) 241

(2003) 8 SCC 80
31

____________________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the ingredients of Section 304-B are satisfied and it is up
to the accused and the defence attorney to rebut the presumption of the Court and disprove the
facts which are overwhelmingly against the three accused.
32

____________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 4
Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment
to suicide?
Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code
Abetment of suicide:
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
To combat the ever increasing menace of dowry deaths, Criminal Law (Second Amendment)
Act, 1983 has provided that where a married girl commits suicide within seven years of her
marriage, the Court may presume that her husband and his relatives had abetted her to commit
suicide by virtue of insertion of Section 113A in the Evidence Act, 1872.
A perusal of Section 113-A of IEA, 1872 would imply that to raise this presumption the
following ingredients must be show:
a) the deceased committed suicide
b) the accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide
c) direct involvement by the accused in such instigation or abetment.
In Ramesh Vithal Patil v. State of Karnataka77, the deceased committed suicide within a period
of seven years from her marriage. S. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is therefore clearly
attracted to this case. Presumption contemplated therein must spring into action.
In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh78, the Apex Court setting aside the order of acquittal of the
High Court and restoring the trial courts verdict held that the accused husband, mother-in-law
and sister-in-law are liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306, IPC for creating such
circumstances which provoked or forced the deceased to commit suicide.
In Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh79, when the woman committed suicide because of
(2014) 11 SCC 516

AIR 1991 SC 1532
33

____________________________________________________________________________________
harassment and constant taunts and torture at the instance of her husband and in-laws, the
accused were held liable under Section 306, IPC.
In State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar80, where a newly wedded wife unable to bear the harassment
from her husband to bring money from her parents set herself ablaze and the accused husband
stood nearby not trying to save her, it was held that the accused was guilty under Section 306,
IPC
In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana81, the bride was subjected to repeated demands for various
articles by way of dowry. She was also taunted, maltreated and mentally tortured. The Court
said that all this constituted abetment for commitment of suicide.
As is evident from the statement of facts, in the instant case, the deceased was driven to
commit suicide by constant harassment for dowry and cruelty through humiliation,
harassment, intimidation and interference by the three accused, the final straw being the act of
procuring and making available the poison to the deceased.
The three accused, through their constant harassment for dowry and acts of cruelty created
such circumstances as to drive the deceased to commit suicide by consuming the poison.
Further, there was no urgency displayed by the three accused in shifting the victim to the
hospital for treatment and even after repeated requests from PW-5 and, PW-6 and PW-7, the
accused failed to act and provide emergency medical treatment to the accused thereby
causing her death. The intention was clearly to drive the person to commit suicide and to
ensure that death would follow.
There is no room for any doubt of the Honble Court that the three accused are guilty of
abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
1992 Cr LJ 3131 (P&H)

AIR 1998 SC 958; 2001 Cr LJ 1679
34

____________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 5
Whether the three accused are guilty under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for acts done
by them in furtherance of common intention?
Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Ingredients of Section 34:
1. A criminal act must be done by several persons
2. There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
3. There must be participation of all in the commission of the offence in furtherance of that
common intention.
Section 34 of IPC creates no specific offence. It only lays down a rule of evidence that if two
or more persons commit a crime in furtherance of a common intention, each of them will be
liable jointly on the principle of group or joint liability i.e. it is the same as if each had done
the act separately and each will be liable constructively in the same manner as if it were done
by him/her alone.
Facts of the present case:
The deceased was subject to humiliation and harassment by way of demanding dowry and
taunts firstly on account of no child and subsequently on birth of a girl child she was cursed,
rebuked and sent to parental house.
Apart from this, it has been recorded that relationship between the deceased and her husband
continued to be estranged due to demand of dowry and excessive drinking of the husband who
started abusing and beating the deceased in the presence of servants.
Most importantly, it was the father-in-law who procured the organo-phosporus poison and
with the help of the other two accused fed it to the deceased. Even if the statement of the
accused that the deceased consumed it on her own is to be believed, it is amply clear that the
poison was procured and provided or made available to the deceased by the accused.
35

____________________________________________________________________________________
The three accused, through their constant harassment for dowry and acts of cruelty through
humiliation, intimidation and interference, created such circumstances as to drive the
deceased to commit suicide by consuming the poison.
Further, there was no urgency displayed by the three accused in shifting the victim to the
hospital for treatment and even after repeated requests from PW-5 and, PW-6 and PW-7, the
accused failed to act and provide emergency medical treatment to the accused thereby
causing her death.
The intention was clearly to drive the person to meet their demand for dowry failing which to
drive the deceased to commit suicide and to ensure that death would follow as punishment for
failing to meet the demands.
The acts of the family are in consonance with their common objective and it may be hard to
specifically pin point to individual roles played by the three accused in driving the deceased to
commit suicide.
The Apex Court in Krishnan v. State of Karnataka82 has reiterated the principle that Section 34
has been framed to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of
individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them.
In Rajesh v. State83, the Supreme Court held the existence of a common intention can be
inferred from the attending circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties and no
direct evidence of common intention is necessary. Participation in the commission of the
offence need not be proved in all cases.
In Pradeep Kumar v. Union Admn84, the Supreme Court held that common intention can be
proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of
the case and conduct of the parties.
It is therefore appropriate to charge and prosecute the three accused under Section 34 of the
(2003) 7 SCC 56; AIR 2003 SC 2978; 2003 SCW 3688 (SC)
(1999) 8 SCC 928

(2006) 10 SCC 608
36

____________________________________________________________________________________
Indian Penal Code to be read with the other charges mentioned herein.
37

____________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 6
Whether the crime is of a heinous nature and has substantial social implications that
exemplary punishment has to be awarded to the accused so as to serve as a deterrent to
others?
It is said that marriages are made in heaven. However, for a long time now, many Indian
married women have been harassed and tortured for the social evil called dowry. Once a gift
from the parents of the girl for her well being has now become a compulsion and an offer to
the groom and his family in exchange of the bride.
With the changing times, the avarice for money has also increased manifold and it is this
greed and avarice that changes the heaven to hell for the newlywed woman. Uncontrolled, this
greed even drives people go to the level of killing the newlywed woman which is a menace in
its own and there cant be anything crueler than this all.
In Paniben v. State of Gujarat85, it was observed that nothing could be more barbarous, nothing
could be more heinous than this sort of crime. The root cause for killing young bride or
daughter-in-law is avarice and greed. All tender feelings which alone make the humanity
noble disappear from the heart.
We are clearly on the opinion that it would be travesty of justice if any kind of sympathy is
shown when such barbaric acts are committed.
In fact, in India, there is a dowry death of a woman every twenty minutes. Statistics such as
these are very disturbing and therefore there is an urgent need for the Courts to take note of
the deteriorating situation on this front and to award exemplary punishments in cases related
to dowry death with the objective of sending out a strong message that serves as a deterrent to
potential offenders.
MR 1992 SC 1817
38

____________________________________________________________________________________
PRAYER
Wherefore it is humbly prayed before this Honble Court that in the light of facts presented,
issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited to adjudge, hold and declare that:
1. the three Accused, are guilty under Sections for murder under Section 302, 304-B,
498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code;
2. the punishment should be exemplary and we pray that all the three accused be
punished with the highest punishment.
And pass any other order that this Honble Court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience. All for which the Appellant shall remain highly and forever obliged.
Counsel for Appellant

Sd/Mr. ______________
39

Prosecution Memo

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Prosecution Memo

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Supreme Court of India

Case No.: 07/2016

Mr. Dinesh Goyal

Mr. Suresh Goyal

Written Memorial submitted on behalf of the Appellant

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Judicial Decisions / Case Law

List of Abbreviations used

Issues for Consideration

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, The Law on Evidence, 25th Edition, Lexis Nexis by B. M. Prasad,

Sarkar on Evidence, Volume 1, 15th Edition 2000, Wadhwa& Company by SudiptoSarkar,

Sarkar on Evidence, Volume 2, 15th Edition 2000, Wadhwa& Company by SudiptoSarkar,

Lawmanns, Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by R. Ramachandran.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Criminal ProcedureCode, 1908

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DICTIONARIES AND LEXICONS:

Websters English Dictionary

Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Edition

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Name of the Case

Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kumar &Ors

AIR 1954 SC 202

Pritam Singh v.The State

AIR 1950 SC 169

M/s. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.

AIR 1959 SC 633

Haryana State Industrial Corpn.v.Cork Mfg. Co

(2007) 8 SCC 359

State of AP v. K. Punardana Rao

AIR 2004 SC 4194

Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana,

AIR 2003 SC 2987

(2007) 9 SCC 196

State of Assam v. Barga Dewani

(1970) 3 SCC 236

Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Mathai v. George and Anr

(2010) 4 SCC 358

Suryamoorthy v. Govinda Swamy

Arunchalam v. P.S.R. Setarathnam

AIR 1979 SC 1286

State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh

(2002) 3 SCC 234

Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar

Ram Piari v. Bhagwant,

AIR 1990 SC 1742

Haripada Dey v. State of W.B

AIR 1956 SC 757

Nayudu Srihari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

(1996) 10 SCC 393

Michael L. v. Johnson Pumps Ltd

AIR 1975 SC 661

Sampath Kumar v. Union of India

(1987) 1 SCC 124

Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai

(2003) 6 SCC 675

Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam

AIR 2005 SC 570

Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar

(2005) 6 SCC 211