RTMNU’S DR.

BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW

NAGPUR

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
__________________________________________________________

THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 304B & 498A

THE INDIN PENAL CODE 1860
__________________________________________________________

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 196 / 1993

__________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF

KULDIP SINGH AND ANR

LACHOWAL DISTRICT PUNJAB
(APPELANT)

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
(RESPONDENT)
__________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR NO. TOPICS PAGENO.

1 List of Abbreviations III

2 LISTOF ABBREVIATIONS
Index Authorities IV

3 AIR Statement Of Jurisdiction ALL INDIAREPORTER V

SC SUPREMECOURT

4 SCJ Statement Of Facts SUPREMECOURTJOURNAL VI

SCR SUPREMECOURT REPORTER

5 SCC Summary Of Arguments SUPREME COURTCASES VII

PI POLICEINSPECTOR

6 IO Issues Of case INVESTIGATIONOFFICER VIII

PW PROSECUTIONWITNESS

7 SEC Prayer SECTION XIV

SDM SUBDIVISIONALMAGISTERATE

MH MAHARASHTRA

MO MEDICALOFFICER

CrPC CRIMINALPROCEDURE CODE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2
 IPC INDIANPENALCODE

Cri LJ CRIMINALLAWJOURNAL

Del.Admin. DELHIADMINISTRATION

P.M. POSTMARTOM

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

 Dashrath vs state of MP 2010 SC 198

 Shyamlal vs state of Haryana 2000 SCC 207
 Raman kumar VS state of Punjab 2009 16 SCC 36
 Kailash VS State of MP AIR 2007 Sc 107

BOOKS

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd edition)

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, (26thEdition)

 Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17thEdition)

 Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (11thedition)

WEBSITES

 https://indiankanoon.org/
 http://www.scconline.com
 http://www.scconline.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

3
STATUTES

 TheEvidenceAct,1872
 TheIndianPenalCode,1860
 TheCodeofCriminal Procedure,1973
 Dowry prohibition Act, 1961

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants Humbly approach the Hon’ble High Court under S.374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, which reads as follows:

Section 374 - Appeals from conviction

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High

Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions
Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held
by any other Court in which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than seven years has been
passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High
Court.
3. Save otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,
a. convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan
Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Magistrate of the first class, or of the second
class, or
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

4
 b. sentenced undersection325, or
c. in respect of whom an order has been made or a
sentence has been passed under section 300 by
any Magistrate, may appeal to the court.’

The respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kuldip Singh, native of Lachowal district Punjab, got married to Reshma Kaur alias
Paramjeet Kaur in the winter of 1989- 90. A healthy son was born to the couple in July
1991. Three years after her marriage i.e. on 6 January 1992, she died an unnatural death
out of aluminium phosphide poisoning which was proved after a medical examination.
Naranjan Das, deceased's father informed the police in a FIR lodged that two years prior
her death, his daughter complained of the maltreatment she received from Kuldip Singh
and his parents Balwant Singh and Gurmit Kaur (appellants in the present case) on
account of bringing insufficient dowry. Naranjan Das further informed that six months
after marriage, Kuldip Singh approached him and demanded Rs.1000 for going abroad
out of which he only provided him with Rs.800. It is to be noted here that Kuldip Singh
was abroad and returned only about a month prior to his marriage. After a period of six
months, a second demand of Rs.5000 was made by him. On 7 January 1992, a day after
her death, Naranjan Das went to Lachowal to see her dead daughter and found that the
appellants were absconding from their house. He suspected ill play and reported the
matter to the police.

The appellants were later arrested and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur. They were found guilty of offence under section 304B of IPC for causing

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

5
death of Reshma Kaur alias Paramjeet Kaur over dowry demands and sentenced to 10
years of rigorous imprisonment.

Feeling extremely dejected and unsatisfied from the judgement, they appealed to the
Punjab and Haryana High Court. On the other hand, Niranjan Das filed a criminal
revision for enhancement of sentence. All this to be decided by the current judgment of
'Kuldip Singh and Anr vs. State of Punjab'.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(i) The Deceased Complained of the Maltreatment received from the Appellants for
bringing insufficient dowry so there were instance of dowry death.
(ii) The Appellants were absconding from their house when Naranjan Das came to see
the corpse of his daughter which sparked a doubt of ill play and their involvement.
(iii) The appellants were fleeing from their house when Niranjan Das came to see the
corpse of his daughter which incited a doubt of ill play and their involvement in
the death of the deceased.
(iv) Niranjan das stated that after 6 months of marriage Kuldip Singh demanded Rs
1000 for going abroad, to which Niranjan das paid him Rs 800.
(v) After another 6 months, Kuldip Singh again demanded Rs 5000, Niranjan das paid
that too so there were instances of dowry demand.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

6
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

Following issues were raised by the learned judge after examining the facts of the case
and reconsidering the various provisions of section 304-B and section 498-A of The
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 113-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(i) After proper medical examination of the deceased, the judge concluded the cause of
the death to be aluminium phosphide poisoning and the same occurring within three years
of marriage. Thus, the two ingredients of section 304-B of IPC stands proven but the
third key ingredient 'soon before her death' is not so vivid through the statements of
witness Naranjan Das and is to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) The prosecution is to vividly classify whether it was a dowry death or a suicide
simpliciter, proving further that suicide was not instigated by the appellants by subjecting
the deceased to cruelty so as to make it fall under section 498-A of the IPC.

(iii) It is to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants other than the husband
were involved in such said case of dowry death as it cannot be simply assumed through
mere conjectures of their participation and specially when there is lack of evidence
against them.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7
 Suicide Simpliciter Getting Converted to Dowry Death

There is a well-connected series of chronological events that occur between dowry

demands, harassment, cruelty and death of the woman. It is on the investigation agencies
to properly establish it, failing which a simple case of suicide gets the label of dowry
death and justice is not served.

The investigation agencies from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences
produced should conclude the events leading to death with utmost caution as a fault on
their part might overturn the final verdict given by the judge.

In the case of State vs. Alok Gupta , the uncle of the deceased informed the police of the
dowry demands and harassment inflicted on her and the unhappy marriage which made
her mentally ill as a result of which she committed suicide. But it was later proved by the
prosecution that the cause of death was not dowry demands. Moreover, the deceased in
her suicide note held no one in-charge of her death and thus, it was proved to be a case of
suicide simpliciter and not of dowry death.

In the case of Sudarshan Kumar and ors vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court stated
that 'circumstantial evidence' is important in cases of dowry death and suicide.
Conclusion can be drawn on the basis of such evidence which could be either direct or
indirect. Similar statements where quoted in the case of State vs. Virendra Kumar and ors

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

8
 Cruelty under section 498A of IPC

In cases of dowry deaths where the woman has committed or attempted to commit
suicide, the prosecution must prove whether it was voluntarily done due to other personal
reasons or was it abetted by her in- laws so as to make it fall under section 498-A of IPC.

This section was added to the code so as to make cruelty in the nature of torture or
harassment inflicted upon the woman in relation to dowry demands a criminal offence
and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also fine.
Cruelty as defined under this section means "any willful conduct which is of a nature
likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health (whether mental or physical) of woman" .

In the case of Durga Prasad and Anr vs. State of M.P, the Supreme Court held that the
nature of cruelty under section 498-A and section 304-B of IPC means the same and
should be in connection with demands of dowry.
In Kishan Singh and Anr vs. State of Punjab , the above judgement was confirmed.
In the cases of M. Srinivasulu vs. State of A. P .Balwant Singh and ors vs. State of H.P ,
the court confirmed that the legal definition of cruelty is same under both the sections
along with stating the difference between the two sections.

Interpretation of the term 'cruelty' through various judgements of Supreme Court and
High Courts: -
In the case of Shobha Rani vs. HedhukarReddi , the apex court held that evidence of
harassment on wife to meet dowry demands is a necessary requirement to constitute
cruelty under section 498-A of IPC. It was further held that it's not necessary for cruelty
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

9
to be only intentional, deliberate or willful. In matrimonial affairs, the word has to be
understood in its normal sense.
In Amar Khan vs. State of Rajasthan , the apex court stated that use of inhumane words
and taunts by husband or his relatives for the woman on account of not bringing
sufficient dowry will also constitute cruelty both within the section of 304-B and section
498-A of IPC.
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudan , the Supreme Court stated that not all
harassment amounts to cruelty under section 498-A IPC. It will amount to cruelty only
when the woman or her relatives are being coerced to meet unlawful demands of
property.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

10
 Dowry Death Charge on Appellants Other Than Husband

Emotionally overwhelmed by their daughter's death, parents or her relatives tend to pull
in every other in-law in the case neither having sufficient evidence against them nor
knowing the consequences. As a result, the case becomes weak for the prosecution to
prove and real culprits might escape punishment.

In the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab , Supreme Court has iterated the need of 'proof
beyond reasonable doubt' for relatives other than husband charged in the dowry death
cases. In the instant case, the parents of deceased charged the relatives of husband in
over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek maximum conviction of family members but had no
real evidence against them which the court stated, weakens the case of prosecuting even
the real accused.
In Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana , the apex court said that such actions by the
relatives of the deceased burdens the work of court to separate innocent individuals from
the real accused. The evidences have to be searched cautiously and carefully. In the
present case, the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were acquitted because
charge against them could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case of Salamat Ali vs. State of Bihar , it was not clear who were the family
members of the husband apart from his parents and on this record it would be unsafe to
convict the parents on vague accusation that dowry demand was made by husband's
family members specially then there were no clear evidences.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

11
 Comparative Study of Dowry Laws:

Dowry deaths and dowry related cruelty and harassment is predominantly found in India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iran. With strong presence of patriarchy, other gruesome
crimes against women also predominates in these regions. This comparison of laws will
be of two neighboring countries of India i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

12
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Increase the term of the sentence of Appellant and
Dismiss the revised application of the Appellant.

AND/OR

Pass any other order, as it deems fit, in light of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: Nagpur –s/d

Date: April,2023 (Counsel for Appellant)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

14