GROUP – A3

BEFORE

THE SESSION COURT OF DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF DELHI ………………………….… PETITIONER

V.

MARCUS…………………..………………….… RESPONDENTS

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.123 OF 2017

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

University Institute of Legal Studies, Harmandeep Singh

Panjab University, Chandigarh B.A.LLb(HONS.) 9th Semester

Roll No. 25/13

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 1
 Table of Contents:

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 3

Index of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ 4

Statement of Jurisdiction: ............................................................................................................... 6

Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 7

Issues Raised ................................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Arguments .................................................................................................................. 9

Arguments Advanced.................................................................................................................... 10

1. WHETHER MARCUS BY TRANSPORTING AND TRANSFERRING KAVITA

COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON? ...................................... 10

2. WHETHER MARCUS’S ACT OF CRUELTY ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF

KAVITA’S SUICIDE? ............................................................................................................. 14

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 20

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 2
 List of Abbreviations

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

H.C. High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. Id est (that means)

I.L.R. Indian Law Reporter

I.P.C. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

L.J. Law Journal

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pb. Publication

S.C. Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

Ss. Sub-Section

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

www. World Wide Web

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 3
 Index of Authorities

Articles:

1. Aarthi Pai, Section 370, Indian Penal Code Amendments and advocacy to prevent
conflation of trafficking and sex work, 2013,CASAM, Sangli

2. Pranay Prakash, Inchoate Offences: A Detailed Analysis, NUALS Kochi

3. Rishabh Shrivastava, Abetment of Suicide, [International Journal of Law and Legal

Jurisprudence Studies Volume 4 Issue 1
4. Tushar Bhardwaj and Siddhartha Srivasatava, A Critical Overview Of Offences Against
Women Under The Indian Penal Code, Amity Law School, Delhi

Books:

1. Durga Das Basu, CASE BOOK ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (2nd ed. 2007).

2. Prof. S.N. Mishra, INDIAN PENAL CODE,(19th ed.), Central Law Publications

3. Sarvaria.S.K.,”R.A. NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE; 9th ed., Vol. 3, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths

4. Gaur,K.D., COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE”,2ND ed., Universal

Law Publishing Co.

5. Basu, Durga Das, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, 5th ed., Vol. 2, Lexis Nexis

Legal Websites:

1. http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
2. http://www.indiankanoon.org
3. http://www.manupatra.com
4. http://www.advocatekhoj.org

5. www.legalcrystal.com/
6. www.lawctupus.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 4
Statues and Rules:

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

Indian Cases:

S.NO CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

1. Bimla Devi vs. State of Punjab Cr. No. 424-SD 18
1985
2. Brij Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661 14
3. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. JT2009(10)SC698 15
of NCT of Delhi
4. Gurbachan Singh v.Satpal Singh AIR 1990 SC 20 18
5. Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik 1986 RLR 220 16
6. K. Amarnath Vs. the Collector and 2005CriLJ843 12
District Magistrate R.R. Dist.
7. Naresh Morotrao v. UOI (1995) 1 Cr. L.J. 96 14
(Bom)
8. State vs. Narain Bhol & Ors SC NO. 06/09 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 5
 Statement of Jurisdiction:

The Prosecution, most courteously and respectfully, submits that this Hon’ble Court has the
requisite territorial and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter under
Section 1771 r/w Section 2092 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further submitted
that all procedural requirements have been adhered to in the prescribed manner.

1
Section 77- Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
2
Section 209-Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it: When in a case
instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to
the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-

(a) 1 commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the
Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such
commitment has been made;]

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the
conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in
evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 6
 Statement of Facts:

1. Kavita Kaur was a young and beautiful girl from village Hundu. During her graduation she
met with a boy Marcus. Both wanted to marry and settle down their life at Marcus’s place at
Johana which was a famous village of Christian community. Kavita's parents opposed this
marriage and threatened Marcus that if he didn’t leave her they will kill him and Kavita because
she dishonored their family in the society.

2. On 20-09-2013 Marcus and Kavita firstly married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies
and after two days they married according to Christian ceremonies and then the applied for
registration of marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954.

3. When Kavita's parents read the local newspaper they filed an objection but the marriage
officer did not find any genuine reason and registered their marriage. After the counseling by
certain social welfare Agencies both families decided to meet at a restaurant in the City. On
meeting, Kavita's father gave a gift of Rs. 2, 00,000 in joint account of both.

4. On 11-01-2014 Marcus pressurized Kavita to withdraw money for the investment in his
business. Kavita refused to give the ATM and passbook to Marcus. After a few days in the
pretext that they will visit Goa with their uncle for a few days there he sold Kavita to a middle
age man Lucky Fancise from his community 50,000. He left Kavita in Goa and came back.
Lucky Fancise further sold her to an influential Businessman of Delhi in 70,000 rupees.

5. One day she called her parents and narrated her story. Her father said that he has sympathy
with her but due to social reputation they cannot help and they can only pray for her but her
younger brother said he will try his best to save her.

6. One day she heard the businessman that he was planning to sell her to a person who was an
agent of a Muslim company in which he was involved in the Migration of the people from one
country to another. She flew away from that place and jumped into river the Yamuna.

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 7
 Issues Raised:

1. WHETHER MARCUS BY TRANSPORTING AND TRANSFERRING KAVITA

COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON?

2. WHETHER MARCUS’S ACT OF CRUELTY ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF

KAVITA’S SUICIDE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 8
 Summary of Arguments:

1. WHETHER MARCUS BY TRANSPORTING AND TRANSFERRING KAVITA

COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON?

Marcus on the pretext of visiting his uncle in Goa went with Kavita to Goa. On Reaching Goa
Marcus sold his own wife to a middle aged man named Lucky Fancise for 50,000/- rupees. After
such a horrible act Marcus left Goa leaving behind Kavita. The facts clearly state that Marcus
had committed the offence of human trafficking. She sold Kavita to Lucky Fancise against her
will. By using deception, he brought Kavita to Goa and made the most inhumane and barbaric
act of selling his own wife for money.

2. WHETHER MARCUS’S ACTS OF CRUELTY ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF

KAVITA’S SUICIDE?

Marcus committed the offence of cruelty by doing various acts. Firstly, he demanded the money
from Kavita which her parents gave to her and pressurized her to withdraw it for investment in
his business.

When Kavita refused to give the ATM and passbook to him, he took her to Goa and sold her to
Lucky Fancise. The sufferings of Kavita by such barbaric act did not end, Lucky Francis further
sold her to an influential business man of Delhi. All this mental sufferings and cruelty broke
Kavita. She was so traumatized by all these act that when she called her parents and ask her
parents to save her, all she could get was their sympathies and a promise by her younger brother.
One day she heard that the business man was planning to sell her to a person who was an agent
of Muslim company in which people were migrated from one country to another. She on finding
an opportunity fled away from that place and was left with just one choice to take her life and
she committed suicide by jumping in the river.

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 9
 Arguments Advanced

1. WHETHER MARCUS BY TRANSPORTING AND TRANSFERRING KAVITA

COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON?

1) Trafficking is the illegal practice of procuring or trading in human beings for the purpose
of prostitution, forced labor or other forms of exploitation.
2) Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of
coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of
vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent
of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or
other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar
to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.
3) The Indian Constitution3 specifically bans the traffic in person. Article 23(1), in the
Fundamental Rights Section of the Constitution prohibits "trafficking in human beings
and begar and other similar forms of forced labour, making a contravention of the same a
punishable offence.”

4) State vs. Narain Bhol & Ors.4, Court held that Human trafficking is a crime
against humanity. It involves an an act of recruiting, transporting, transferring,
harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the
purpose of exploiting them. Every year, thousands of men, women and children fall into
the hands of traffickers, in their own countries and abroad. Every country in the World is
affected by trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims.
Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or

3 1950
4 SC NO. 06/09

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 10
 other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar
to slavery servitude or the removal of organs.
5) Further Section 370 of The Indian Penal Code5 defines Trafficking of person which
reads:
.—(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours,
(d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by—
First.—using threats, or
Secondly.—using force, or any other form of coercion, or
Thirdly.—by abduction, or
Fourthly.—by practicing fraud, or deception, or
Fifthly.—by abuse of power, or
Sixthly.— by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in
order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited,
transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking.
Explanation 1.—The expression "exploitation" shall include any act of physical
exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery,
servitude, or the forced removal of organs.
Explanation 2.—The consent of the victim is immaterial in determination of the offence of
trafficking.
(2)Whoever commits the offence of trafficking shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine6.

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act7, (ITPA) intends to combat trafficking and
sexual exploitation for commercial purposes. While prostitution is not an offence,
practicing it in a brothel or within 200 m of any public place is illegal. The Act
regularized prostitution and provides assistance to all women and children who have been
forced into the same. Section 5 of the Act says that any person who takes or attempts to

5 1860
6 Prof. S.N. Mishra, INDIAN PENAL CODE,(19th ed.), Central Law Publications
7 1956
MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER
Page 11
 take a person or causes a person to be taken, from one place to another with a view to
his/her carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution against the will of any
person, the punishment shall be of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to
imprisonment for a term of fourteen years8.
Section 5 of the Act reads: Procuring, inducing or taking [person] for the sake of
prostitution
(1) Any person who-
(a) procures or attempts to procure a [person] whether with or without his consent, for
the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) induces a [person] to go from any place, with the intent that he may for the purpose
of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or
(c) takes or attempts to take a [person] or causes a [person] to be taken, from one place
to another with a view to his carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a [person] to carry on prostitution,
[shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than
three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two
thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will
of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to
imprisonment for a term of fourteen years:
6) K. Amarnath Vs. the Collector and District Magistrate R.R. Dist9:Section 2(i):
'immoral traffic offender' means a person who commits or abets the commission of any
offence under the Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.’ The Court said that if
an immoral traffic offender engages himself or herself or is making or makes preparation
for engaging in any of the activities which affect adversely or are likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order, it can be said that he or she is acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Such acts will affect the
maintenance of public order only when they directly or indirectly cause any harm, danger

8 Aarthi Pai, Section 370, Indian Penal Code Amendments and advocacy to prevent conflation of trafficking and sex work,
2013,CASAM, Sangli
9 2005CriLJ843
MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER
Page 12
 or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a
grave and widespread danger to life or public health. To say that it affects the public
order, the immoral traffic offender must indulge in such acts which are the offences under
the Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 and which may directly or indirectly
cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a
section thereof; or which may cause a grave and widespread danger to life and public
health. The twin requirements, which appear to be sine qua non, therefore, are that the
detenue must be an immoral traffic offender; and that he or she must act in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The public order would be affected only
when the activities of the offender may directly or indirectly cause any harm, danger or
alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a section thereof or may
cause grave and widespread danger to life or public health. In other words, the acts of
detenue may cause a feeling of insecurity among the general public or may cause grave
and widespread danger to life or public health. It must be said that if a person indulges
and trades in sex, such acts would gravely affect the public health as it may lead to the
dangerous epidemic of AIDS10.
7) The facts of the case states that Marcus on the pretext of visiting his uncle in Goa went
with Kavita to Goa. On Reaching Goa Marcus sold his own wife to a middle aged man
named Lucky Fancise for 50,000/- rupees. After such a horrible act Marcus left Goa
leaving behind Kavita.
8) The sufferings of Kavita and her worsening situation did not end, she was further sold to
a Delhi based influential businessman for 70,000/- rupees. She then overheard that she
would be transported to another country through a Muslim Company.
9) The above facts clearly state that Marcus had committed the offence of human
trafficking. She sold Kavita to Lucky Fancise against her will. By using deception, he
brought Kavita to Goa and made the most inhumane and barbaric act of selling his own
wife for money.

10 Tushar Bhardwaj and Siddhartha Srivasatava, A Critical Overview Of Offences Against Women Under The
Indian Penal Code, Amity Law School, Delhi

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 13
 2. WHETHER MARCUS’S ACT OF CRUELTY ABETTED THE COMMISSION
OF KAVITA’S SUICIDE?

10) Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide as “If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable with
such imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to 10 years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
11) Creation of circumstances that provoked or forced wife to commit suicide attracts section
306 of Indian Penal Code-Brij Lal v. Prem Chand11 Thus, In order to convict a person
under section 305 or 306, IPC, there has to be a clear Mens Rea to commit the offence. It
also requires an active act or a direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no other option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide.
12) Suicide is self-murder and the person committing suicide is beyond the reach of the law.
Nevertheless, it does not follow that abetment of suicide is not forbidden by the code. A
man encouraging and abetting another to commit suicide is certainly a criminal and his
act is punishable under section 306. In fact, such an act is not only criminal but
condemnable from every point of view. To make out a case of abetment, there must be
instigation by the accused-provoking, inciting or encouraging a person to do an act. The
offence of abetment under this section must conform to the definition given under section
107 of Indian Penal Code, i.e., there must be instigation, cooperation or intentional
assistance given to the person committing suicide. Before the actual conviction of a
person under Sec. 306, it must be established that such other person has committed
suicide. Section 306 creates a specific offence and the liability does not arise in case of an
attempted suicide which will attract section 309, IPC. The direct involvement by the
accused in such abetment or instigation is necessary12.

11 AIR 1989 SC 1661

12 Rishabh Shrivastava, Abetment of Suicide, [International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies Volume 4 Issue 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 14
 13) Constitutional Validity of Section 306, IPC has been upheld in Naresh Morotrao v.
UOI13 .It was observed that section 306 constitutes an entirely independent offence. It is
based on the principle of public policy that nobody should involve himself in, or
instigate, or aid, the commission of a crime. It is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution.
14) For conviction under this section, the prosecution has to prove –
 The deceased committed suicide
 The accused instigated or abetted for committing suicide, and
 Mens Rea of the accused.
15) The liability arises only when the suicide is committed. In case of an attempted suicide,
provisions of Section 306 will not be applicable. For conviction under Section 305 or
306, the offence of abetment must conform to the definition of ‘abetment’ given in
section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. There must be instigation, or engaging in
conspiracy, or assistance in the commission of the offence
16) In order to convict a person under Section 305 or 306, IPC, there has to be a clear Mens
Rea to commit the offence. A conviction for abetment to suicide is possible only if the
accused actually made a positive move to push the victim to take his or her own life. To
attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid, instigate, or abet
the deceased to commit suicide is necessary.
17) The basic constituents of an offence under section 306 are suicidal death and abetment
thereof. The direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation is
necessary.
18) In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)14, the court held that
there should be some live link, or approximate link between the act of the accused and
the act of committing suicide. If the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused
has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide.

13 (1995) 1 Cr. L.J. 96 (Bom)

14 JT2009(10)SC698

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 15
 19) For the purpose of bringing home any charge, vis-à-vis Section 306/107 IPC against the
accused, there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the
deceased in some way, to commit suicide or had engaged with some other persons in a
conspiracy to do so, or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission
to cause the said suicide.
20) Definition of cruelty mentioned under section 498A of IPC: The issue of women's
rights and family law reform has been increasingly entangled within the polemics of
politics and minority rights. It is true that the hardships and sufferings experienced by
woman of all communities, minority as well as majority, cannot be overlooked with the
help of persuasive or effective freedom of religion. The life of an average Hindu woman
has always been difficult and pitiable due to existing social customs and practices of
time.
21) Indian Penal Code, 1860, refers to 'cruelty by husband or relatives of husband' and
includes section 498-A.
22) Whoever being the husband or relative of the husband of woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with the imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty” means-
(a) Any wilful 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 (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with view to coercing her or any
person related to her meet any unlawful demand for any person related to her to meet
such demand.
23) In the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik15 , it was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is
defined in the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view
to coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any
valuable security is cruelty.

15 1986 RLR 220

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER
Page 16
 24) Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman.
25) Section 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women- When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or
such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having
regard to all the other circumstance s of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by
her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation – For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as
in section 498 A of the Indian Panel Code (45 of 1860).
26) Under this section, when it is found that a woman has been subjected to cruelty as
defined in section 498A, IPC, by her husband or his relatives, and she is shown to have
committed suicide within the period of seven years from the date of her marriage, then
the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or such relative
of her husband16
27) A Court may presume and convict the husband (or his relatives) for harassing and
subjecting his wife to ‘cruelty’ and there by driving her to commit suicide even if he (or
his relatives) is (or are) not formally charged under section 306, IPC along with section
498A of the IPC. And where an accused is held guilty for cruelty under section 498A, he
can, on the same evidence, be convicted under section 306, IPC, for abetting the suicide.
Similarly, a court can convict a person under section 306, IPC, even if he is not charged
under S. 498A, IPC.
28) For attracting the provisions of 113A, I.E.A., 1872, the following things has to be proved:
 Suicide must be committed by a married woman
 Suicide must have been abetted by husband or any relative of her husband
 Suicide must be committed within seven years of the marriage
 She must have been subjected to cruelty (as defined in 498A of Indian Penal Code) by
her husband.

16 Sarvaria.S.K.,”R.A. NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE; 9th ed., Vol. 3, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER
Page 17
 29) In Gurbachan Singh v.Satpal Singh17, Ray, J., concurred with the above observation
and said: In the instant case on a proper consideration and weighing of the evidences is
the only reasonable view that can be taken is that the cruel behavior and constant taunts
and harassment caused by the accused persons while deceased was in her in-laws house
instigated her to commit suicide and in our considered opinion no other reasonable view
follows from a proper consideration and appraisement of the evidence on record. As such
the decision cited above is not applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the instant
case.
30) In Bimla Devi vs. State of Punjab18, the Punjab and the Haryana court said that merely
providing that the married woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage
and that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or in-laws was not sufficient to
bring into operation presumption under section 113A. The Court should have regard to all
other circumstances. Then only it should apply the presumption. Further, cruelty or
harassment of the married woman by her husband or in-laws should be of such quality to
drive or prompt her to commit suicide. It is only then that the court should apply the
presumption of abetment to suicide. It may be emphasized that presumption will arise
only when the married woman committing suicide was subjected to cruelty by the
husband or in-laws. The presumption will apply if the woman had in fact committed
suicide. The legislature has by amending the Penal Code and Evidence Act made Penal
Law more strident for dealing with and punishing offences against abetment to suicide.
Such strident laws would have a deterrent effect on the offenders only if they are so
stridently implemented by the law courts to achieve the legislative intent. On the facts
found and the offence proved to have been committed leading to suicidal death. For
offence under Section 306, IPC, the sentence may extend to ten years. In case the
husband is found to have harassed his wife to such an extent as to drive her to commit
suicide, sentence of five years would be proper sentence for the crime with the amount of
fine of Rs. 20000 to be paid to the parents of the deceased19.

17 AICR 1990 SC 20
18 Cr. No. 424-SD 1985
19 Gaur,K.D., COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE”,2ND ed., Universal Law Publishing Co.

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 18
 31) From the facts of the Case it is clear that Marcus committed the offence of cruelty by
doing various acts. Firstly, he demanded the money from Kavita which her parents gave
to her and pressurized her to withdraw it for investment in his business.
32) When Kavita refused to give the ATM and passbook to him, he took her to Goa and sold
her to Lucky Fancise. The sufferings of Kavita by such barbaric act did not end, Lucky
Francis further sold her to an influential business man of Delhi.
33) All this mental sufferings and cruelty broke Kavita. She was so traumatized by all these
act that when she called her parents and ask her parents to save her, all she could get was
their sympathies and a promise by her younger brother.
34) The worse was about to happen, when one day she heard that the business man was
planning to sell her to a person who was an agent of Muslim company in which people
were migrated from one country to another. She on finding an opportunity fled away
from that place and was left with just one choice to take her life.
35) All the mental agony, cruelty, harassment, torture she suffered at the hands of her
husband Marcus and other person involved made her commit suicide by jumping in the
river Yamuna. Clearly, Marcus abetted the commission of Kavita’s Suicide.

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 19
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENT ADVANCED,

REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE HON’BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO:

HOLD

 MARCUS GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF TRAFFICKING IN PERSON.

 MARUCS GUILTY OF CRUELTY WHICH ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF
KAVITS’S SUICIDE.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. AND
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND
EVER PRAY.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

-Sd

Counsel on Behalf of Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER

Page 20