Defense TC-07

2nd NUSRL NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2017.
TEAM CODE: TC-07
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

2 NUSRL NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2017
ND
12TH – 14TH MAY 2017

_______________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRINICIPAL COURT OF

SESSIONS, RINCHI
(G.R. No. 1895 of 2017)
_______________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
State of Realkhand...........……….PROSECUTION
v.
Mr. Nakul Khanna & Ors…….......…..…DEFENCE
_______________________________________________________________________
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DEFENSE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Numbers
1. Index of Authorities………………………………………….……….4
A. Cases Referred…………………………………………….……………4
B. Reports Referred……………………………………………………….8
C. Statutes…………………………………………………….……………….8
D. Books Referred………………………………………………..…….....8
E. Dictionary……………………………………………………….………….9
F. Internet Resources………………………………………..……………9
2. Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………11
3. Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………..………………12
4. Statement of Facts…………………….…………….…..................13
5. Statement of Charges………………………….........................14
6. Summary of Arguments…………………..............................15
7. Arguments Advanced…………………...........................16
 WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1, A2 AND A3 ARE GUILTY FOR THE

OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTIONS. 120 B, 109, 302 AND 34 OF
VPC?........................................................................................................................16

1.1. The accused A2 and A3 are not guilty for the offence of conspiring (S. 120 B) and
abetting (S. 109) A1 to murder (S. 302) the deceased in furtherance with common
intention (S.34) of VPC……………………………………………………………………16
1.2. THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY Mr. BALDEV AND Mrs. REKHA TO

MURDER AASHIMA……………………………………………………………………..18
1.3. THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER ……………..22
 Whether the accused are guilty for the offences under Sections 498 A and 304 B of
VPC?..........................................................................................................................33
2.1. Mere commenting does not amount to cruelty………………………………………33
2.2. Mere harassment is not cruelty………………………………………………………34
2.3. Mere suspicion will not prove the guilt of the accused………………………………35
2.4. Ingredients for dowry death is not well established………………………………….36
2.5. The whole case is based upon mere suspicion………………………………………..36
8. Prayer……….………………………………………….......38

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
CASES REFERRED:
1. Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v.Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 5 SCC 257
2. R.Venkata Krishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737
3. Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175.
4. State of Kerala v. P Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC 203
5. Keher Singh V. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
6. Hanumant V. State of Madhya pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343
7. Sarad Birdhi Chand Sarda V. State of Maharastra, 1984 CriLJ 738 SC.
8. Paramhans Yadav V. State of Bihar, 1987 (35) BLJR 127
9. In re, Ram Japu Rai, 1999 CrLJ 4164 (Pat).
10. State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205.
11. Saju v State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175: 2001 (1) SCC 378
12. Amiruddin Salebhoy AIR 1923 Nom 44.
13. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001(9) SCC 618).
14. Parimal Chatterji AIR 1932 Cal 760.
15. Kartar Singh V. State of Punjab (1194) 3139 CrLJ (SC).
16. Prem Narain AIR 1957 All 177.
17. Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010)3 SCC (CRI.) 367)
18. Ram Kumar 1998 CriLJ 952 (MP)
19. State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73
20. Vijay Kumar Rastogi vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) CRI. L.J.2342)
21. Ramabtar Agarwalla V. State (1983) CrLJ 122 (Ori)
22. Protima Dutta V. State of West Bengal (1977) CrLJ (NOC) 96 (Cal)
23. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, 02-12-2016
24. Randhir Singh and Another VS. State of Punjab (2004(13) SCC 129
25. S.S.Cheena VS. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another (2010(12) SCC 190)
26. Trilok Chand V. State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666
27. Gangula Mohan Reddy VS. State of A.P. (2010(1) SCC (Cri.) 917)
28. Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi
29. Shri Ram v. the State of U.P.
30. Bijoyananda Patnaik V. Brinnand AIR 1970 Cal 110.

31. Ami Lal v State of Rajasthan (1996)CrLJ 1585 (Raj)

32. Kehar Singh V State(Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883
33. Prem Narayan v State, AIR 1957 All 177
34. Bhagwat Singh v Balwant Singh, 1978 CrLJ (Raj) 279
35. RanjanaYakiv. State 2004 (12) SCC 521.
36. Joseph v. State 1995 CrLJ 502.
37. Malan V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 Nom 393, (1960) CrLJ 1189 (Bom)
38. Nara Singh Challan v. Sate of Orrisa, 1997 CriLJ 2204
39. Lakhanpal vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1620
40. Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129
41. Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar (1998)5 SCC 699
42. Joginder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 461
43. Kishan Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 32
44. Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54
45. Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 198 PH 1, 4
46. State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
47. (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
48. Mohanan Kavi V. State of Kerala, (1993) Cur Cri R 702 (DB) (Ker)
49. Gul Mohummed vs King Emperor AIR 1947 Nag 121
50. Chander Bahadur Suha vs State 1978 Cr LJ 942 (Sikkim).
51. Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
52. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
53. Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757 (Ori).
54. State of West Bengal V. Orilal Jaismal AIR 1994 SC 1418
55. Duraipandi Their V. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659: 1973 Cr.LJ 602.
56. Anant Chitaman Lagu V. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500, p.523
57. Stephen Seveviratne V. Kinda, AIR 1936 P C 289
58. Awadesh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1158
59. Mayor V. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 5
60. Rami @ Rameshwar V. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 649
61. Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand V. State of Haryana and Anr, (1999) SCC 525
62. Bihari Nath Goswami V. Shiv Kumar Singh and Ors 20 SCC 178
63. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 4) 9 SCC 186
64. Vijay @ Chinee V. State of Madhya pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191.

65. Yoesh Singh V. Mahabeer Singh and others 2017 CrLJ 291
66. Sampath Kumar V. Inspector of police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124
67. Shyammal Kumar V. State of West Bengal , (2012) 7 SCC 646
68. Mritunjoy Biswas V. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr, (2013) 12 SCC 796
69. Munshi Prasad And Ors vs State Of Bihar 2001 SCC
70. Ram Narain V. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727
71. Amor Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SCC 826
72. State of Haryana V. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426
73. Purshottom V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1873
74. Piara Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR1977 SC 1174.
75. Awadesh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1158
76. Mohammed Habib V. State 1988 CC 401 (HC) (DB)
77. Brij Bhuldan V. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 474
78. State of Rajasthan V. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390
79. Balwinder Singh V. State of U.P, 1989 Cr LJ 718 (P&H)
80. Baitullah v. State of U.P, AIR 1997 SC 3946
81. Arjun V. State of Rajasthan 1994 Supp (3) SCC 189.
82. Mallana v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 8 SCC 523
83. Jodhan V. State of madhaya pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 52.
84. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54
85. Satya Narain v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 1309
86. Raju @ Balachandran and Ors V. State of tamil nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701
87. Gangabhavani V. Rayapati venkat Reddy and Ors (2013) 15 SCC 298
88. State of A.P V. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644
89. Kulesh Mondal v. State of W.B. (2007) 8 SCC 578
90. Bhagalool Lodh and Anr V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC 206
91. State of Uttar Pradesh V. Jagdeo Singh (2003) 1 SCC 456
92. Dahari and Ors V. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 10 SCC 256
93. State of Punjab V. Jit Singh, 1994 CrLJ 1116 (SC): AIR 1996 SC 3098.
94. Ajikumar V. State of Kerala 2017 CrLJ 1452
95. Shivaji Sahebrao Babade and And V. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
96. Ramashish Rai V. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498.
97. Dalip Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364.
98. Anil Rai V. State of Bihar ( 2001) 7 SCC 318.

99. Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1560

100. Kishan Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 32
101. Ram Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 420
102. Halim Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1826
103. Sheoram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2555
104. State of Bihar v. Lala Mahto A.I.R 1955 pat. 161.
105. Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492.
106. William Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116.
107. Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 2015 SCC 9391
108. Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101) DRJ 61 (DB)
109. Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
110. State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045
111. Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20
112. Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (para 6) (Ori)
113. State of Maharashtra v. Vilas Pandurang Patil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1065 (Bom)
114. Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ NOC 16(Mad)
115. Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (2) Raj CrC 552.
116. Bodh Raj v. State of J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164
117. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220
118. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502
119. Peria Rajendran v. State, 2007 CrLJ 1242, 1245 (para 9) (Mad)
120. Anant v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500
121. Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 2692 (para 11)
122. State of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504
123. Anar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27
124. A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
125. Pratap v. State of U.P., 1976 SCR(1) 757
126. Rishi Kesh Singh Ors. v. State, AIR 1970All 51(FB)
127. K.M. Nanavathui v. State of Maharastra,1962 SCR Supl(1) 567
128. Mustak Hussein v. State OF Bombay,[1953] SCR 809
129. Smt Nagindra Bala Mitra v Sunil Chandra Roy, [1960]3 SCR 1
130. Woolmington v. Director Of Public Prosecutions, LR 1935 AC
131. Upendra Pradhan V. State of orissa (2015) 11 SCC 124
132. Golfer Hussain and Ors V. State of Assam and Anr (2015) 11 SCC 242

133. Chandrappa and Ors V. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415.

134. State of Rajasthan V. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180.
135. State of Punjab V. Jagri Singh (1974)3 SCC 277
136. Vide Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 180.
137. Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36
138. Vipin Jaiswal V. State of Andra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684
REPORTS REFERRED
1. 91st Law Commission Report

2. 154th Law commission Report
3. 202nd Law Commission Report
4. 243rd Law Commission Report
5. Justice Malimath Committee report,2003
STATUTES
1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

2. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
4. DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Criminal Law : Cases and Materials- K.D. Gaur Edition 6th , Year-2015.
2. S.C. Sarkar Commentary on the indian penal code,1860 2nd Edition Vol 2&4 2008
3. P.S Varma Murder trial 2008
4. R A Nelson Indian Penal Code - S.K. Sarvaria Year 2015 Reprint .
5. Ratan Lal Dhiraj Lal: Indian Penal Code Year 2015 Edition- 40th
6. Indian Penal Code - S.N Mishra Edition -16th Year 2008.

7. Criminal Law - PSA Pillai 12th Edition Year 2016.
8. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 14th Edition Gerard J. Tortora, Bryan H.

Derrickson, January 2014.
9. D.D. Basu Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Year 2015 Edition 6th .
10. Modi A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 2012 year 24th Edition
11. Dr Avtar Singh Principles of the law of Evidence 2014 21st edition
12. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 14th Edition Gerard J. Tortora, Bryan H. Derrickson, January
2014.
DICTIONARY
1. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Minneapolis, West, 1990.
INTERNET RESOURCES
1. http://www.manupatra.com/
2. http://www.indlaw.com/?gclid=CJmts4ig_6oCFcEc6wodpHF02g
3. http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-ehtm
4. www.google.com
5. http://www.cyberlawsindia.net/cases.html
6. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/cri_m.htm
7. www.lawkam.org/evidence/single-eye-witness/7405/
8. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/dying-declaration-section-32(1)-of-indian-evidence-
act-1682-1.html
9. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/common-intention-and-common-object-under-the-
indian-penal-code-1860-1338-1.html
10. http://www.lawweb.in/2013/02/basic-concept-of-preparation-as-is.html
11. http://www.shareyouressays.com/118994/what-is-the-meaning-of-house-trespass-under-section-442-of-
ipc
12. http://devgan.in/ipc/section/452/

13. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/common-intention-and-common-object-under-the-
indian-penal-code-1860-1338-1.html
14. Depoorter, Ben. “Fair trespass” Columbia Law Review 111, no. 5 (2011): 1090-135.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41305148.
15. http://www.livelaw.in/who-is-an-interested-witness-is-raju-alias-balachandran-and-others-vs-state-of-
tamil-nadu-correctly-decided/
16. https://blog.ipleaders.in/trespass-meaning-nature-types-defenses-case-laws/

ABBREVIATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
CW Chief Witnesses
Factsheet Statement of Facts
Hon'ble Honourable
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
IPC Indian Penal Code
IEA Indian Evidence Act
Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
Para Paragraph
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
All Allahabad
Bom Bombay
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
UOI Union of India
SLP Special Leave Petition
P.W. Prosecution Witness
HC High Court
Del Delhi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction in accordance with Section 177 r/w 209 of the
“Code of Criminal Procedure”
“Section 177- 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.
Read with Section 209:
“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) Commit the case to the Court of Session;
(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.‟

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aashima (Deceased) is a beautiful, bright & intelligent woman. She is the only daughter of
Mr. Anand Chatterjee & Mrs Sushma Chatterjee residing in Rinchi. Due to Aashima
Spontaneous interest in her studies. She managed to get admission in IIM Lehamdabad
College for MBA. Despite Anand’s low income, he took a loan of 24 lakhs for Aashima’s
education. Aashima met Nakul, a boy from wealthy family and also his father had a big
political support. Nakul was also from Rinchi this made both of them to create a bond which
turned into a loving relationship during the final days. During her convocation day, Aashima
revealed to her parents that she wanted to marry Nakul. Anand Chatterjee at first did not
accept and thereafter accepted for the sake of his daughter. In order to fulfil the expectation
of Nakul’s family he again took a loan of 10 lakhs which was also not revealed to Aashima.
Aashima and Nakul got married on 25th Dec 2015.
After marriage, the life of Aashima totally changed and got miserable. She was
declined from going for a job which was offered by Piggy Bank Pvt Ltd with a salary of 28
lakhs per annum. Whenever Mr. Anand spoke with her over phone, Aashima used to sound
very depressed and troubled. Mr. Anand however paid several visits to meet his daughter, but
he felt very awkward by the unwelcoming attitude of the Nakul’s Family. Aashima did not
get conceived because she wanted to do her Doctorate for which the entire family went against
her decision and abused her. After several months of Marriage Nakul’s family met a huge loss
in the business for which Aashima was blamed. During many instances, Rekha Khanna
blamed Aashima for not bringing any wealth to the family in the manner of dowry. On
17.02.2017, Aashima was lying dead in her house. The parents of Aashima were called up by
Nakul and they were heart broken. Mr Anand Chatterjee went to the Police station and filed
a complaint against Nakul (Husband), Baldev (Father-in-Law) and Rekha Khanna (Mother-
in-law). The police filed a charge sheet under section 302, 304-B, 498-A, 34, 109, 120B of
VPC.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES
After Complying with statutory requirements under Sec.184 of CrPC read with Sec. 220 and
223 of Cr. PC the Court of Session framed charges against the accused:
ACCUSED 1: Nakul Khanna has been charged under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of Vindian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as VPC), Sec. 304B (Punishment amounting to dowry death), Sec.
498A (punishment for cruelty amounting to demand of dowry), Sec.120B (Criminal
Conspiracy).
ACCUSED 2: Baldev Khanna has been charged under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of Vindian Penal
498A (punishment for cruelty amounting to demand of dowry), Sec. 109 of VPC
(Punishment for abetment). Sec.120B (Criminal Conspiracy).
ACCUSED 3: Rekha Khanna has been charged under Sec.302 r/w Sec.34 of Vindian Penal
498A (punishment for cruelty amounting to demand of dowry), Sec. 109 of VPC
(Punishment for abetment). Sec.120B (Criminal Conspiracy).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1, A2 AND A3 ARE GUILTY FOR THE

OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTIONS. 120 B, 109, 302 AND 34 OF VPC?
1. There was no criminal conspiracy.

2. There was no agreement to commit an unlawful act.
3. There was no abetment by Mr. Baldev and Mrs. Rekha to murder Aashima.
4. Baldev and Rekha had no mens rea to abet nakul
5. The offence alleged to be abetted actually did not take place.
6. Prosecution could not establish the grounds for abetment as per sec.109
7. The essential ingredients of actus reus and mens rea are absent
8. The prosecution has miserable failed to prove the chain of circumstances and
incriminating evidence against the accused and the entire allegations are based on mere
suspicion which does not establish the guilt of the accused.
9. The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5 are unreliable and untrustworthy as they are
interested witness
10. The prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER

SECTIONS 498 A AND 304 B OF VPC?
1. There is no cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused for demand of dowry.
2. Mere commenting does not amount to cruelty:
3. Mere harassment is not cruelty:
4. Mere suspicion will not prove the guilt of the accused:
5. Ingredients for dowry death is not well established:
6. The A1, A2, has not demanded any dowry from neither the deceased nor from the
deceased’s family.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1, A2 AND A3 ARE GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCES
ALLEGED UNDER SECTIONS. 120 B, 109, 302 AND 34 OF VPC?
The edifice of the judicial system in India rests on the principle, it is better and more
satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty than to condemn a single innocent `.This sacred
principle is unimpeachably embedded in the Criminal laws of India so that the rule in its
sublime semantics does not become a rope of sand losing it righteous meaning and moral
quintessence, causing a miscarriage of justice. The defense humbly submits before the
Hon'ble Court of Sessions that the accused are not liable for the offences punishable under
Sections 120 B, 109, 302 and 34 of VPC.
1.1. The accused A2 and A3 are not guilty for the offence of conspiring (S. 120 B) and
abetting (S. 109) A1 to murder (S. 302) the deceased in furtherance with common
intention (S.34) of VPC.
It is contended by the defence throughout the following arguments that A1, A2 and A3 are
innocent as they are not liable to be punished for the alleged offences and for the same
which the prosecution lack evidences to prove beyond the reasonable doubt.
1.1.1. THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
The Defence humbly contends that the accused are not liable for Criminal Conspiracy
under
Section 120 B of VPC. For this offence, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement
between the parties for doing an unlawful act.1The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Venkata
Krishnan v. CBI2 laid down the following ingredients of criminal Conspiracy:
(i) An agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) Agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either:
(a) An illegal act
1
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v.Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 5 SCC 257
2
R.Venkata Krishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737: AIR 2010 SCC 1812: (2009) 11 SCALE 102: (2009) 13 SCR
762

(b) An act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.3
1.1.2 THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN UNLAWFUL ACT.
For criminal conspiracy, it must established that all the accused had the intention and had
agreed to commit the crime.4 A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution
relies will not be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with commission of
criminal conspiracy.5
The relative acts or conduct of parties must be conscientious and clear to mark concurrence
as to what must be done. Such concurrence may not be inferred by a group of irrelevant
facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.6
1.1.3. IN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE MUST

SHOW THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE ACT MUST HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE
ACCUSED.
In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should at the first instance be fully established and all the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and in tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.7
The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn "should be" fully
established and not "may be" established. There must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all probability the act must have been done by the
accused.8
3
Venkatachaliah, M.N., J. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal the Indian Penal Code, 32 ndEnlarged ed. Nagpur:
LexisNexisButterworths Wadhwa (2013),p. 607.
4
Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175.
5
State of Kerala v. P Sugathan, (2000) 8 SCC 203
6
Keher Singh V. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883.
7
Hanumant V. State of Madhya pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343
8
Sarad Birdhi Chand Sarda V. State of Maharastra, 1984 CriLJ 738 SC.

It is difficult to support charge of conspiracy with direct evidence in every case but if the
prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, a clear link has to be established otherwise
conspiracy cannot be accepted.9
1.1.4. BALDEV AND REKHA DID NOT CONSPIRE TO ABET NAKUL TO MURDER
AASHIMA.
In the case in hand from the words of the witnesses we clearly cannot draw a chain of
circumstances which would prove beyond the reasonable doubt that Mr. Baldev and Mrs.
Rekha conspired to abet Nakul to murder their deceased daughter in law, Aashima. The
gist of the offence of conspiracy lies in the forming of the scheme10 or agreement between
the parties. Agreement is essential. There was no such agreement in the instant case.
There were no instances to prove the guilt. The prosecution have failed to prove the guilt
beyond the reasonable doubt. There is no direct evidences present in the present case. The
case solely relies upon the circumstantial evidences in which a clear link has to be
established. The prosecution failed to establish such a clear link between circumstantial
evidences. When there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged
conspiracy, the accused cannot be convicted on a charge u/sec 120B.11 Hence the alleged
offence of conspiracy cannot be accepted by the court.
1.2. THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY Mr. BALDEV AND Mrs. REKHA TO

MURDER AASHIMA.
Hon’ble court that the Accused is not guilty for the offence of abetment under s.109 r/w
s.107, VPC. Abetment of a thing is when a person instigates, conspires or intentionally aids
an illegal act or an illegal omission. In order to convict a person as an accomplice, it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove12 that the Accused aided, abetted, counselled or
prosecuted the commission of the principal offence.
9
Paramhans Yadav V. State of Bihar, 1987 (35) BLJR 127
10
In re, Ram Japu Rai, 1999 CrLJ 4164 (Pat).
11
State of U.P. v. Phera Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205.
12
Saju v State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175: 2001 (1) SCC 378

1.2.1. BALDEV AND REKHA HAD NO MENS REA
Section 107 states that a person who intentionally instigate a person to commit an illegal
act or abets a conspiracy is liable for the offence of abetment. A person is said to
instigate another to act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by any means
or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express, solicitation, or of
hints, insinuation or encouragement.13
The word 'Instigate' means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage doing an act.14Moreover, there as to be a reasonable certainty in regard to
the meaning of the words used by the inciter in order to judge whether or not there was
an incitement, but it is not necessary in law to prove the actual words used for
incitement15, words are uncertain here so interpretation should not be done on mere
suspicion.
Every case is dependent on its own facts and circumstances.16
The word 'urge' means to advice or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to
make a person to move more quickly or in a particular direction, especially by pushing
or forcing such person.17 A mere word, without necessary intent to incite a person,
uttered in quarrel or in spur of the moment or in anger does not constitute ‘instigation’.
To attract an offense under s.109, IPC, mere association of the accused persons with
those who are charged for an offense is not enough. Unless there is existing material
evidence which enunciates the instigation by A2 and A3, either in aiding or in the
commission of the offense committed by A1, the charge under abetment stands
disproved.
13
Amiruddin Salebhoy AIR 1923 Nom 44.
14
Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001(9) SCC 618), see also: Parimal Chatterji AIR 1932 Cal 760.
15
Kartar Singh V. State of Punjab (1194) 3139 CrLJ (SC), para 62, also: Prem Narain AIR 1957 All 177.
16
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010)3 SCC (CRI.) 367) , see also Ram Kumar 1998
CriLJ 952 (MP), State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73
17
Vijay Kumar Rastogi vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) CRI. L.J.2342), see also : Ramabtar Agarwalla V. State
(1983) CrLJ 122 (Ori), Protima Dutta V. State of West Bengal (1977) CrLJ (NOC) 96 (Cal).

In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab18, the Supreme Court held that there must be a
strong intention on part of the accused for the abetted offence to be committed.
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that
person in doing of a thing.19 In absence of such mens rea the accused shall not be
punished on mere suspicion.20 Otherwise, even a mere casual remark, something said
in routine and usual conversation will be wrongly construed or misunderstood as
'abetment'.21
To prove the charge of abetment by conspiracy, the prosecution is required to prove

that the abettor had instigated the doing of a particular thing or engaged with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or
intentionally aided by an act or illegal omission, doing of that thing. Criminal
conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy.22
A1 being the only son of A2 and A3 does not relate them to the instigation for
committing the offence. A mere association of the accused persons with the A1 does
not depict any intention to abet or instigate the A1 for the commission of any crime.
There is no material evidence which leads to the conclusion that there was any abetment
for commitment of the offence of murder. It depends on the particular facts of each
case23 that the words 'Instigation and Incitement' “should be read to signify something
deeper than a mere asking of a person to do a particular act.” There was nothing which
was urged or encouraged or provoked by A2 and A3 in any way, to abet A1 to murder
Deceased. No material or circumstantial evidences are present so as to conclude
abetment of the offence committed by A1.
18
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, 02-12-2016
19
Randhir Singh and Another VS. State of Punjab (2004(13) SCC 129: (AIR 2004 SC 5097), see also S.S.Cheena
VS. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another (2010(12) SCC 190)
20
Trilok Chand V. State of Delhi AIR 1977 SC 666
21
Gangula Mohan Reddy VS. State of A.P. (2010(1) SCC (Cri.) 917), see also Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi,
Shri Ram v. the State of U.P.
22
Bijoyananda Patnaik V. Brinnand AIR 1970 Cal 110.
23 st
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, (31 Edn., 2006 p. 518)

1.2.2. THE OFFENCE ALLEGED TO BE ABETTED ACTUALLY DID NOT TAKE

PLACE.
A person can be charged and convicted for abetting an offence only if he has evidently
instigated another to commit a criminal actor render intentional aid by act or omission
or engages somebody to do an illegal act24. A charge under Sec. 109 has to be along
with some other substantive offence committed in consequence of abetment25. In the
matter at hand there is no substantive offence which has been proved or any evidence
of abetment.
In order to ascertain the meaning of the words conveyed, the ‘immediate reaction’ of
the Accused persons is to be noticed and relied upon.26 Moreover, in RanjanaYaki v.
State27 it was ruled that a person can be held liable u/s 109 of VPC, 1860 if an act is
committed in consequence of the abetment.28
Here in this case the deceased was not actually murdered by Nakul. There is no such
substancial evidences to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. The same is dealt
clearly below. When the alleged act to be abetted is disproved there is no valid
justification in punishing the alleged abettor under S.109 of VPC.
1.2.3. PROSECUTION COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GROUNDS FOR

ABETMENT AS PER SEC.109
Active abetment is necessary to convict any person under the section. In the present
case the question as to when, where and how DW2 has abetted DW1 is not specified.
The prosecution cannot levy criminal charges against the accused on weak and vague
evidences. As far as the prosecution has failed give sufficient explanation, the accused
cannot be charged with the offence. A person abets doing of a thing when:
1. He instigate any person to that thing, or
24
Ami Lal v State of Rajasthan (1996)CrLJ 1585 (Raj)
25
Kehar Singh V State(Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883
26
Prem Narayan v State, AIR 1957 All 177; See also, Bhagwat Singh v Balwant Singh, 1978 CrLJ (Raj) 279
27
RanjanaYakiv. State 2004 (12) SCC 521.
28
Joseph v. State 1995 CrLJ 502.

2. Engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing
3. Intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime.29
Hence to attract the offence Under S.109 of VPC, the ingredients of S.107 should be
complied with and the said offence should be committed. Otherwise the guilt cannot
be proved. The prosecution have failed to prove the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
There is no evidence of direct and active involvement in abetting and hence A2 and
A3 cannot be punished just for mere suspicion.
1.3. THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER
It is submitted that the accused is not liable for committing murder u/s.302. Murder as
defined under Sec.300 of the Indian Penal Code, is specie of culpable homicide, which is
given in Sec.299 of the IPC.30 Therefore, it is humbly contended that the death of the
deceased was not due to the act of the accused. The mere fact that the appellant and the
deceased were together in the field does not lead to the irresistible inference that the
appellant must have murdered the deceased.31
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily
injury, which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so
dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death of that person32.
Whether the offence falls under S. 302, I.P.C. or S. 304, I.P.C, the nature of the injuries
sustained by the deceased and the circumstances under which the incident took place are
relevant factors. From the nature of the injuries and the origin and genesis of the incident,
it could be spelt out that all the ingredients of the offence of murder defined under S. 300,
I.P.C are made out and it is not possible to bring the offence within any of the five
exceptions of S. 300, I.P.C.33
29
Malan V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 Nom 393, (1960) CrLJ 1189 (Bom)
30
Nara Singh Challan v. Sate of Orrisa, 1997 CriLJ 2204
31
Lakhanpal vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 1620
32
Sec 300, IPC
33
Ramashraya vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1129

In clear and categorical terms Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar34 laid down that where
the intent and overt act is not unerringly established without any room for doubt against the
accused, the tentacles of Sec.302 shall not be extended to the accused, rather he shall be
presumed innocent. As both ingredients are not present in the instant case, by no stretch of
imagination, the accused can be convicted from the charge of the brutal crime, murder.
In order to convict anybody there should be an act that is criminal in nature with a motive
to commit the offence and the totality of the circumstances should affirm the same.35
Scrutinizing the outlines of mens rea the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Bose v. State of
2
Bihar laid that, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, intent to
kill the deceased on the part of the accused.36
It is humbly presented before the court, that under Sec. 300(2), a person is guilty of
committing murder if he acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury which he
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom such harm is caused. It is the
felonious killing of another human being with malice aforethought.37
In the present case the accused and deceased were living happily together for two years. It
is very common in every couple who eventually resulted in wedlock through love marriage
to face some rough pace of life due to some misunderstandings. It is important to be noted
that Nakul and Aashima both cared for each other and they cared to sort out all the
misunderstandings. It is evident that Nakul compensates the hard times of Aashima with
bunch of flowers, sorry cards and other fancy gifts. It is to be noticed by the court that there
are only few husbands who care to sort out the problems with such gifts. This shows the
love of Nakul towards Aashima.
The Defence contends that both, the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime are not
established in the instant matter.
34
Brijlala Pd. Sinha v. State of Bihar (1998)5 SCC 699
35
Joginder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R 1994 SC 461
36
Kishan Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 32
37
Sanwat Khan vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54

1.3.1. MENS REA TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention38, which is proved or inferred from the acts of
the accused39. It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action
normally produces and if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death
occurs as a result, the intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the
victim and the offence committed amounts to murder40.
If it can be proved that even one of the elements that constitute the crime of murder has not
been successfully proved by the prosecutor, then the accused cannot be held criminally
liable. Furthermore, Clause (2) of S.300 requires for an offence to be proved that the
offender have the intent to cause such bodily injury complied with the knowledge of the
special circumstances of the victim that such a bodily injury was likely to cause the death
of the victim.41
1.3.2. ACTUS REUS TO COMMIT MURDER WAS NOT PRESENT
Actus reus is any wrongful act42. It is the conduct that constitutes a particular crime.43 Every
criminal act is based on actus reus and mens rea. The word "actus reus" connotes an overt
act. This is a physical result of human conduct, and therefore, an event which is
distinguished from the conduct which produced the result. In a murder case, it is the victim's
death which is an event and, therefore, is an actus reus.
1.3.3. POST MORTEM REPORT IS JUST A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE.
The post-mortem report is an extremely relevant and important document, in cases brought
under Sec.302, of the Indian Penal Code.44 The post mortem report becomes important in
cases where the cause of death is to be established and is a matter of controversy. 45 It is
humbly submitted that as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, Evidence includes all
38
Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
39
State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
40
(1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
41
Mohanan Kavi V. State of Kerala, (1993) Cur Cri R 702 (DB) (Ker)
42
Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd ed 2006)
43
Gul Mohummed vs King Emperor AIR 1947 Nag 121; Chander Bahadur Suha vs State 1978 Cr LJ 942 (Sikkim).
44
Sheo Govind Bin v. State of Bihar, 1985 BBCJ 632.
45
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883

documents produced for the inspection of the Court46. These documents are admissible in
court as expert opinion under Section 45 of the I.E.A. The Apex Court has admitted as
evidence and relied on post mortem reports in a catena of cases47.
The medical evidence is usually a opinion evidence.48 The medical opinion by itself,
however, does to prove or disprove the prosecution case, it is merely of advisory
character.49
1.3.4. THE OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE POST MORTEM REPORT IS NOT
SUBSTANTIVELY ADMISSIBLE.
It is to be noted that a medical expert's opinion is not always final and binding. 50 Even
where a doctor has deposed in Court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the
evidence of any other witness and there is no irrefutable presumption that a doctor is always
a witness of truth.51
In the present case there is a contradiction between the statement of the medical expert PW-
4 and the post mortem report given by him. PW- 4 clearly mentioned that he received the
dead body for post mortem at 9.00 pm and there was a profuse bleeding from the incised
wound. It is to be noted that such kind of profuse bleeding after the more than 3 to 4 hours
after the death. It is very clear from the post mortem report presented by the prosecution
that the death time mentioned in the report is (). PW-4 mentioned that he saw visible injuries
on the right side of the face. But the same was not mentioned in the post mortem report.
Post mortem report is scientific dissection of the dead body. All findings be it injury or
disease must be documented. Moreover, to document and opine the cause of death is the
aim of conducting an autopsy. Whereas in the case in hand there is no such report of the
visible injuries on the right side of the face and profuse bleeding which is impossible after
46
" Evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it
by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all
documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.
47
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal AIR 1994 SC 1418, see also: Kunduru Dharua v. State 2002 CrLJ 1757
(Ori).
48
State of West Bengal V. Orilal Jaismal AIR 1994 SC 1418, see also : Duraipandi Their V. State of Tamil Nadu,
AIR 1973 SC 659: 1973 Cr.LJ 602.
49
Anant Chitaman Lagu V. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500, p.523: 1960 CrLJ 682, see also: Stephen
Seveviratne V. Kinda, AIR 1936 P C 289 at p.298.299: (1936) 37 CrLJ 963.
50
Awadesh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1158: 1988 CrLJ 1154 p.10.
51
Mayor V. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 5: 1982 CrLJ.

hours of death is untrue. Serious discrepancies in the evidence will affect the prosecution
case.52 Such serious omission and contradictions are efficient to fail the prosecution case.53
The cause of death mentioned in the report is the heavy blood lose which lead to
decompensated heart and pulmonary edema. It is impossible for a profuse blood lose at
9.00 pm where as the death was due to heavy blood lose. Aashima was confirmed to be
dead by DW- 4 around 5.30 pm.
If the evidence of the witness for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical
evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case unless reasonably
explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.54 When there is conflict between
medical and oral evidence, the prosecution case must fail.55 In an appropriate case on a
consideration of the nature of the injuries and other relevant evidences, the court shall come
to its own conclusion, if the medical evidence is deficient.56
1.3.5. THE EVIDENCE OF PW1,PW2 ARE UNRELIABLE AND

UNTRUSTWORTHY AS THEY ARE RELATED & INTERESTED WITNESS.
The interested witness is dealt in Sec.118 of Vindian Evidence Act.The term interested
postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the
accused person is somehow or other convicted because he had some animus towards the
accused.57 However the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely because he is
related to the victim or deceased. It depends upon case to case.58
52
Rami @ Rameshwar V. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 649: AIR 1999 SC 3544, see also: Leela Ram
(dead) through Duli Chand V. State of Haryana and Anr, (1999) SCC 525, Bihari Nath Goswami V. Shiv Kumar
Singh and Ors (2004) 9 SCC 186, Vijay @ Chinee V. State of Madhya pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191: (2010) AIR
SCW 1249.
53
Yoesh Singh V. Mahabeer Singh and others 2017 CrLJ 291, see also Sampath Kumar V. Inspector of police,
Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124: (AIR) 2012 SC 1249, SHyammal Kumar V. State of West Bengal , (2012) 7 SCC
646 : (AIR) 2012 SC 3539, Mritunjoy Biswas V. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and Anr, (2013) 12 SCC 796: (AIR) 2013
SC 3334.
54
Munshi Prasad And Ors vs State Of Bihar 2001 SCC, Ram Narain V. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727: 1975
CrLJ 1500: 1978 SCC Cri 571, Amor Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SCC 826, State of Haryana V. Ram
Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426, Purshottom V. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1873: 1980 CrLJ 1298: 1980
CrLJ (SC) 668,Piara Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR1977 SC 1174.
55
Awadesh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1158, Mohammed Habib V. State 1988 CC 401 (HC) (DB)
56
Brij Bhuldan V. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 474: 1957 CrLJ 591.
57
State of Rajasthan V. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390, Balwinder Singh V. State of U.P, 1989 Cr LJ 718 (P&H)
58
Baitullah v. State of U.P, AIR 1997 SC 3946. Arjun V. State of Rajasthan 1994 Supp (3) SCC 189.

The testimony of partisan or interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care and
caution.59 As a matter of prudence the Court must look for independent corroboration.60
Just because the witness is the relative of the deceased does not prove the statements
are always reliable.61 It is not safe to base conviction on the basis of evidence of partisan
witnesses unless some corroboration is found in other evidence, material on record62 or
evidence of clinching nature.63 If such evidence does not satisfy the test of credibility, then
the Court can disbelieve the same.64
A. PW1, PW2 had some animus with the accused A1.
The evidence of interested witness has to be tested in the light of previous statement
and surrounding circumstances.65 From the facts and the prosecution witness
statement of PW1, PW2 it is clear that they were not interested to marry the deceased
off to the accused A1 and there were no reasons for the same. The defence contends
that the their hostility towards the accused will be for the wealth the accused
possessed and their presumption that wealthy persons are prone to aggressive,
wrongdoer, sinner attitude. It is very clear from the statements of PW1 that he had a
great affection towards his only daughter Aashima. He had took loans of Rs. 24 lacs
and Rs. 10 lacs for her education and marriage and brought her up without showing
the real situation of the family.
Misunderstandings, shoutings, fights and other discomforts are common between a

newly married couple. It is very common to be faced by the deceased some
discomforts in a new family. But the same does not constitute a valid reason for
accusing the innocent DW1, DW2 and DW3. Aashima herself expressed that Nakul
59
Mallana v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 8 SCC 523
60
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54
61
Jodhan V. State of madhaya pradesh (2015) 11 SCC 52.
62
Satya Narain v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 1309
63
Raju @ Balachandran and Ors V. State of tamil nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701, Gangabhavani V. Rayapati venkat
Reddy and Ors (2013) 15 SCC 298, State of A.P V. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644
64
Kulesh Mondal v. State of W.B. (2007) 8 SCC 578
65
Bhagalool Lodh and Anr V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 12 SCC 206, State of Uttar Pradesh V. Jagdeo Singh
(2003) 1 SCC 456, Dahari and Ors V. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 10 SCC 256 State of Punjab V. Jit Singh, 1994 CrLJ
1116 (SC): AIR 1996 SC 3098.

used to compensate her with bunch of flowers, sorry cards and other fancy gifts. It is
evident from PW- 5. The same was not expressed by PW1 and he one sidedly kept
accusing Nakul's family. It is only due to his mentality that his daughter can not be
treated well other than him.
It should be clearly noted from the statements of PW2. PW-2 is the mother of the
deceased. But she never accused Nakul's family as how PW1 stated one by one. It is
unbelievable that the deceased at least once expressed her discomforts in her in law
families to her beloved mother. It is PW- 1 who said his own assumptions to PW- 2. It
is even more doubtful that even after hearing the condition depicted by PW- 1, PW-2
did not get a heart to meet or call her only daughter to know what the real situation
is.
It is evident that PW-1 as soon as he saw his daughter in bed in a pool of blood grabbed
Mr. Baldev's shirt and started blaming for his daughter's condition. He never had the
heart to know what had really happened. This again proves his strong feeling of
animosity towards Nakul's family as they did not match his family's status. So this kind
of animosity towards the accused and his family casts a shadow of doubt and such
resentment made them to falsely implicate the accused A1, A2, A3 in the crime.
Even if there is grave suspicion, it cannot take the place of proof and also the burden
of proof is entirely on the prosecution.66 It should be noted that once Baldev spoke
rude over the phone to PW1. But the very next day he invited them to New Year Eve's
dinner and even Aashima herself consoled saying that her father in law showed the
anxiety over the business loss over him. This have created a feeling of enmity over
Nakul's family as he had great possessiveness over Aashima.
Enmity is a doubtful aged sword.67 It can be a ground to false implication68 ordinarily,

a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
66
Ajikumar V. State of Kerala 2017 CrLJ 1452, see also : Shivaji Sahebrao Babade and And V. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.
67
Ramashish Rai V. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498.
68
Dalip Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364.

innocent person. It is true when feelings run high, that there is tendency to drag in an
innocent person.69
1.3.6. THERE WAS NO COMMON INTENTION AS EMPHASISED UNDER SECTION 34 OF VPC.
Scrutinizing the outlines of Sec.34,70 the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Bose v. State of
Bihar71 laid that, to draw an inference of common intent, the evidence adduced must
establish beyond reasonable doubt, a mens rea on the part of the accused and it was shared
by all accused.72 Apart from the presence at the scene of crime,73 where there is no common
intention and no satisfactory evidence to show that accused caused death of the deceased,
conviction is impossible.74
Though establishing common intention is difficult for the prosecution, yet, however
difficult it may be, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or
circumstantial that there was a plan or meeting of mind of all the assailants to commit the
offence, be it pre-arranged or the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the
commission of the crime.
In view of the phraseology of S. 34 existence of common intention is not enough, the
criminal act impugned to attract S.34 must be committed in furtherance of common
intention. The section operates only when it is found that the criminal act done by an
individual is in furtherance of the common intention and not without it75. The words ‘in
furtherance of the common intention of all’ in S.34, IPC do not require that in order that
the section may apply, all participants in the joint acts must either have common intention
of committing the same offence or the common intention of producing the same result by
their joint act be performed.
It is true that no concrete evidence is required to prove a common intention between
two people to commit an act. It is however key here to understand that such evidence must
be such that it does not leave any room for doubt against such an intention. 76 Moreover, to
69
Anil Rai V. State of Bihar ( 2001) 7 SCC 318.
70
Sec.34: Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention (Refer Appendix I, pg.17)
71
Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1560
72
Kishan Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 32
73
Ram Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 420
74
Halim Mian v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1826; Sheoram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2555
75
State of Bihar v. Lala Mahto A.I.R 1955 pat. 161.
76
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 1492.

sustain a charge under s. 34, active participation in the commission of the criminal act is
required which is clearly absent in the present case.77
In the present case there is no strong evidence to prove that there existed a common
intention to kill Aashima. Nakul's family is a well settled and wealthy family. If they had
really felt that Aashima is a bad luck and they don't need her anymore they have legal
methods to get judicially separated. Instead this well educated family have no hard choice
to murder Aashima. PW1 and PW2 failed to point out that their daughter was diagnosed
for vertigo and was diabetic. They even failed to inform that they were invited to join the
dinner on the New year's Eve. PW1 himself have said that his daughter mentioned him that
her relationship with Nakul and his family is peaceful and she cried due to some other
personnel problems.
Problems in a family is common. It is important to note that how quick the problems
are resolved in the family. Nakul and his family members showed great affection towards
Aashima and took care of her very well. Naked even sorts out the misunderstandings just
after some time and even greets Aashima with some gifts and use to take her outings on
weekends. This was eventually mentioned by Aashima herself. Taking these minor
misunderstandings and complaints by Aashima at the time of them as evidences to punish
the respondents will be unjustifiable.
It is very dramatic that Mr. Anand and Mrs. Rekha took loans of Rs.24 lacs for her
studies and Rs.10 lacs for her wedding and Aashima never knew about it but, suddenly she
came to know through a distant relative. She never had time to talk with her own parents
often but she had a chance of talking to a distant relative who already knew the information
on loan. Hence the mere suspicion cannot prove the guilt. The basic ingredient of murder
is unproved. Hence it is contended that there exist no common intention and no act took
place in furtherance of the imaginary common intention. There exist a big lacuna in the
story of the prosecution.
1.3.7. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS UNRELIABLE GIVING RISE TO REASONABLE DOUBT
The circumstantial evidence in a case where there is a link of causation, if established,

proves that the act was committed by the person so accused.78
77
William Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116.
78
Nemichand v. State of Rajasthan 2015 SCC Online Raj 9391; Ravinder Singh v. Govt of NCT Delhi 2008 (101)
DRJ 61 (DB)

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial evidence,
the court must satisfy itself that various circumstanced in the chain of evidence should be
established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused.79
Essential ingredients to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence are:

(1) Circumstances from which conclusion is drawn should be fully proved.
(2) Circumstances should be conclusive.
(3) All facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and
inconsistent with innocence of the accused.
(4) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of a person other than the
accused.80
The Supreme Court, in Bodh Raj v. State of J&K,81 added one more point to the above
four, viz., there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Justice Hidayatullah observed "Circumstantial evidence in this context means a
combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the
accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his
guilt."82
The sequence of events does not lead to any inference that something happened during
the night which made her commit suicide immediately.83
When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
79
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
80
State of U.P. v. Dr. R.P. Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045, applied in Vithal Tukaram More v. State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 7 SCC 20, (para 11). Also see Kartik Sahu v. State, 1994 CrLJ 102 (para 6) (Ori); State of Maharashtra v.
Vilas Pandurang Patil, 1999 CrLJ 1062, 1065 (Bom); Thangaraj v. State by Inspector of Police, 1994 CrLJ NOC
16(Mad) ; Prithviraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 CrLJ 2190, 2196 (paras 25 & 26) (Raj) : 2004 CrLR 598(Raj) :
2004 (2) Raj CrC 552.
81
Bodh Raj v. State of J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164, para 17 : (2002) 8 SCC 45. See also Dhananjoy Chatterjee v.
State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220, 229, para 7 :(2002) 8 SCC 45; Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC
502, 511 (para 20); Peria Rajendran v. State, 2007 CrLJ 1242, 1245 (para 9) (Mad).
82
Anant v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 500 at page 523. See also Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ
2692 (para 11)
83
State of Tamil Nadu vs P. Muniappan AIR 1998 SC 504

circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts.84
In the present case the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution case rest mainly on the statement of PW1,PW2,PW5 and
circumstantial evidence. In circumstantial evidence the chain of events must be
complete and lead to singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty.85 But in the present
case the chain of events is incomplete and does not establish the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution only merely presumes that the crime “could have” taken place and they
don’t place substantive and conclusive proof to link the accused with the crime. The
edifice of the judicial system in India rests on the principle, ‘it is better and more
satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty than to condemn a single innocent `.
If two views are possible one ending to guilt of the accused and other pointing towards
his innocence, the latter view must be accepted.86 There exists reasonable doubt and
hence they should be acquitted of the alleged crime.87 A reasonable doubt must not be
imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt;88 but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.89 Hence there are serious
infirmities in the case of prosecution and the accused A1 is not liable to be punished
for the charge of murder.
84
Anar Lal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27; A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
85
Pratap v. State of U.P., 1976 SCR(1) 757; Rishi Kesh Singh Ors. v. State, AIR 1970All 51(FB);K.M. Nanavathui v.
State of Maharastra,1962 SCR Supl(1) 567; Mustak Hussein v. State OF Bombay,[1953] SCR 809; Smt Nagindra
Bala Mitra v Sunil Chandra Roy, [1960]3 SCR 1;Woolmington v. Director Of Public Prosecutions, LR 1935 AC
86
Upendra Pradhan V. State of orissa (2015) 11 SCC 124, Golfer Hussain and Ors V. State of Assam and Anr
(2015) 11 SCC 242, Chandrappa and Ors V. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415.
87
State of Rajasthan V. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180.
88
State of Punjab V. Jagri Singh (1974)3 SCC 277, see also Vide Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)
2 SCC 180.
89
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai Cr LJ 2004 SC 36

2. Whether the accused are guilty for the offences under Sections 498 A and 304 B of
VPC?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the accused are not guilty for
the offence of dowry death. The Hon' ble SC has pronounced that for conviction in
dowry death it is mandatory to prove cruelty first.90 Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine91. And cruelty means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman.92
In the present case, there is no any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely
to drive the woman to cause grave injury or danger to life or health (whether mental or
physical). And not even a single witness could describe any incidence in which the
deceased was subjected to cruelty earlier.
2.1. Mere commenting does not amount to cruelty:
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalidindi Sahadevedu,93 it was alleged that, as the

deceased did not beget child for a period of three year after the marriage, accused harassed the
deceased by calling her “barren woman”. It was held that mere commenting that deceased was
not begetting children, does not amount to subjecting cruelty within the meaning of section
498A of IPC.
In the present case there is no direct proof to prove that the accused really described
the deceased as the bad luck to their family. The defence witnesses clearly point out that it was
Aashima who showed care over the family business and tried her level best to cope up with the
losses. From this we can clearly point out that the Baldev family is not insane to call Aashima
90
Vipin Jaiswal V. State of Andra Pradesh (2013) 3 SCC 684
91
Sec. 498A, IPC, 1860
92
Explanation I of S. 498 A, IPC, 1860
93
Andhra Pradesh v. Kalidindi Sahadevedu 2012 Cr.LJ 2302 (AP)

as bad luck as she was the one who was helping Nakul to overcome his stress due to business
loss.
2.2. Mere harassment is not cruelty:
Even mere harassment does not amount to cruelty. It is only where the harassment is
shown to have been caused for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet demands that it
amounts to cruelty which has been made punishable under the section.94
The conjoint reading of Sec.304B of VPC, 1860 and Sec.113B of VEA,1872 suggest us
that soon before the death of the accused, the prosecution must place necessary evidence on
table to prove that women concerned was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry.95
In Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar,96 this Court considered the
expression soon before death and held as under:-
The expression soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act
and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before
the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates.
Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution. Soon before is a relative term and it would
depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to
what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence.
In the present case there is no proof of demand of dowry. Neither Aashima expressed
about it to her parents nor the Baldev family expressed to the deceased's family. It was Aashima
who wanted money from her friend Harneet. There is only a "may be" contention i.e. suspicion
that they might have demanded dowry. But it never happened. DW3 mentioned that Aashima
wanted a sum of money to compensate the loss of the business. The deceased have felt that if
she merely had asked for the same help her friend Harneet may not lend her the money.
Aashima tried her level best to bring back the business to a stable condition which is evident
from the witnesses of DW1, DW2 and DW3. But she went weak both mentally and physically
due to hard work and stress. Hence to get a quick remedy the deceased just lied to her friend
94
Lokesh Kaushik & Ors. v. State, SC on 28th April, 2009
95
Baljinder Kaur V. State of U.P, 2014
96
Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388

that she is been called the bad luck of the family so that her friend will lend the money in
courtesy. If we go through the letter of Aashima we can confer two possibilities of demand of
sum from the accused. Firstly, the family had given her the only choice to compensate the
money to live with Nakul. Secondly, It was Aashima who herself thought that compensating
them with sum money will solve all the frustrations going on in the family due to the business
loss.
2.3. Mere suspicion will not prove the guilt of the accused:
There is difference between “may proved” and “must be proved” and the accused cannot be
convicted on the evidences which “may prove” his guilt without the presence of evidences
which “must prove” the guilt of the accused. If two conclusions can be drawn from the case,
one which refers to the guilt of accused and other which refers to an innocence of accused, then
the Court should first follow the conclusion which refers to the innocence of accused. No
accused should be convicted, till all the evidences presented by the prosecution, proves the
guilt of an accused beyond any reasonable doubt.97
Also the SC has observed that in-laws of a deceased cannot be roped in only on the ground of
being the close relative of the husband of the deceased.98 Some overt act must be attributed to
them in the incident and the same should also be proved beyond reasonable doubt99
Moreover, in State of Andra Pradesh v. Madhusudhan Rao,100 no cruelty for dowry

was made out, the fact that there was attempt at forced poisoning was nullified in the view of
SC. The court also pointed out harassment simply is not cruelty; it is cruelty when it is passed
for coercing a dowry demand.
The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven
years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under
Sections 304B and 498A of the Code against them.101
97
Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722
98
Kans Raj V. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2324
99
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, Shailendra kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, on 11th Sept, 2009.)
100
State of AP v. Madhusudhan Rao 2008 15 SCC 582
101
Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1287

2.4. Ingredients for dowry death is not well established:
The prosecution has failed to establish the necessary ingredient of dowry death i.e.
cruelty or harassment meted out to the deceased by the appellant soon before her death, the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be raised.102
Marital life is prone to arguments, clashes, misunderstandings between the spouses

and it cannot be termed as cruelty. Ordinary tantrums and discord or differences in domestic
life does not amount to cruelty.103 In the present case there is material produced by the
prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased was caused only due to the dowry
harassment caused by the accused. In the instant case A1, A2, A3 are well settled and there is
no need to demand dowry from the middle class PW1, PW2 and the deceased. A1 and A2
considered only the paramount interest of A1 and gave his son to marry off the deceased. It is
also evident from the witness statement of PW1 and PW2.
2.5. The whole case is based upon mere suspicion:
It would be unjustified to convict an accused only on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial
evidence until and unless that evidences are corroborative with direct proof given by the
prosecution.104
In the present case there is material produced by the prosecution to prove that the death of the
deceased was caused only due to the dowry harassment caused by the accused. In Satvir Singh
and others Vs State of Punjab and another,105 it was held that there should be a perceptible
nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her. In the
instant case A1,A2,A3 are well settled and there is no need to demand dowry from the middle
class PW1, PW2 and the deceased. A1 and A2 considered only the paramount interest of A1
and gave his son to marry off the deceased. It is also evident from the witness statement of
PW1 and PW2.
Also when going through the statement of PW5, it was only the deceased out of her own
concern wished to settle the debt coming from the family business and not on the persuasion
102
Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6473, 102 Baljinder Kaur V. State of U.P, 2014
103
Neeraj Subhash Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 62
104
Rajiv Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1336
105
Satvir Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and another AIR 2001, SC 2828 at p. 2834.

of the accused. In Appasaheb & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra,106 a demand for money on
account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for
purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally
understood. So the prosecution has failed to pass the proximity test and the Sec.304B will not
sustain and the accused A1, A2, A3 must be relieved from the charge.
The prosecution humbly contends that there is no demand of dowry and there was no
cruelty faced by the deceased to attract the offence under Section 498 A and 304 B. The
prosecution failed to prove beyond all the reasonable doubts. The prosecution relies only upon
the mere suspicion whereas the suspicion gives way to the acquittal of the accused. Hence
DW1, DW2 and DW3 are not guilty for the offence under S. 498 A and S. 304 B of VPC.
106
Appasaheb & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2007, SC 763 at p. 767.

PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, charges framed, evidence adduced, arguments advanced and
authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully submitted; this Hon’ble court may be
pleased to
Find That
I. Nakul Khanna, Baldev Khanna, Rekha Khanna is innocent and they must be acquitted
of charge under Sec.302 r/w 34 of VPC.
II. Nakul Khanna, Baldev Khanna, Rekha Khanna has not demanded any dowry and
subsequently no cruelty has been committed to Aashima and henceforth they must be
acquitted from the charge under Sec.304B and Sec.498A of VPC.
III. Baldev Khanna, Rekha Khanna has not abetted Nakhul Khanna to commit any
offence and hence they must be acquitted from the charge abetment under Sec.109 of
VPC.
IV. Nakul Khanna, Baldev Khanna, Rekha Khanna has not conspired to commit any
offence and hence they must be acquitted under Sec. 120B of the VPC
V. Nakul Khanna, Baldev Khanna, Rekha Khanna must be given compensation under
Sec.358 of the CrPC for police arresting them without any grounds.
And/ Or pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
All of which is humbly submitted,

S/d……………………
(Counsels for Defence)

Defense TC-07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defense TC-07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd NUSRL NATIONAL TRIAL ADVOCACY COMPETITION, 2017.

TEAM CODE: TC-07

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

12TH – 14TH MAY 2017

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRINICIPAL COURT OF

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENSE

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Nakul Khanna & Ors…….......…..…DEFENCE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 1

 WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1, A2 AND A3 ARE GUILTY FOR THE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 2

1.2. THERE WAS NO ABETMENT BY Mr. BALDEV AND Mrs. REKHA TO

1.3. THE ACCUSED IS NOT GUILTY OF COMMITTING MURDER ……………..22

2.2. Mere harassment is not cruelty………………………………………………………34

2.4. Ingredients for dowry death is not well established………………………………….36

2.5. The whole case is based upon mere suspicion………………………………………..36

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 3

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 4

31. Ami Lal v State of Rajasthan (1996)CrLJ 1585 (Raj)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 5

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 6

99. Anil Kumar Bose v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1560

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 7

133. Chandrappa and Ors V. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415.

1. 91st Law Commission Report

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

3. P.S Varma Murder trial 2008

4. R A Nelson Indian Penal Code - S.K. Sarvaria Year 2015 Reprint .

6. Indian Penal Code - S.N Mishra Edition -16th Year 2008.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 8

7. Criminal Law - PSA Pillai 12th Edition Year 2016.

8. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 14th Edition Gerard J. Tortora, Bryan H.

1. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Minneapolis, West, 1990.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 9

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 10

AIR All India Reporter

Factsheet Statement of Facts

SCC Supreme Court Cases

IPC Indian Penal Code

IEA Indian Evidence Act

Cr.P.C. Criminal Procedure Code

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

UOI Union of India

SLP Special Leave Petition

P.W. Prosecution Witness

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 11

“Section 177- Ordinary place of inquiry and trial”

Read with Section 209:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 14

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED A1, A2 AND A3 ARE GUILTY FOR THE

1. There was no criminal conspiracy.

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER

2. Mere commenting does not amount to cruelty:

3. Mere harassment is not cruelty:

4. Mere suspicion will not prove the guilt of the accused:

5. Ingredients for dowry death is not well established:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 15

1.1.1. THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE | 16