Memorial On Behalf of Respondents

TEAM CODE: __
1ST DR. S.M. JUNIWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
STATES OF X, Y, Z ….APPELLANTS
v.
SUDHIR AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1ST DR. S.M. JUNIWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................................4
A. CASES..................................................................................................................................4
B. BOOKS REFERRED:.........................................................................................................4
C. STATUTES REFERRED...................................................................................................5
D. LAW LEXICONS................................................................................................................6
E. WEBSITES REFFERED/ ONLINE RESOURCES.........................................................6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED.............................................................................................................................11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.........................................................................................................13
ISSUE-I: WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR NOT?...................................................................................13
ISSUE-II: WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL
BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS SUSTAINABLE OR NOT?.....................................20
ISSUE-III: WHETHER THE APPELLANT FACED CRUELTY OR NOT?.....................22
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF
APPELLANT OR NOT?............................................................................................................26
PRAYER..........................................................................................................................................30
2
Memorial on behalf of Respondents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVATIONS ACTUAL TERMS
& And
§ Section
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
No. Number
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v./vs. Versus
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors. Others
Sec Section
I.P.C Indian Penal Code
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedural Code
Anr. Another
Cr.LJ Criminal Law Journal
Suppl Supplementary
Re. Refrences
Govt. Government
Info. Information
S.C.R. Supreme Court Report
U.O.I. Union Of India
Ed. Edition
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES
CASE LAW PAGE NO.
Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of AP, (1975) SC 1926. 13
State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602. 16
State of MP vs. Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509. 17
Anil Kumar vs. State of MP, (2012) 3 MPHT 521. 18
Shyam Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731. 19
Manju Ram Lalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330. 21
Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2017) SC 821. 21
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014). 21
Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Pub. Prosecutor, (2007). 25
Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009). 25
The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps……. vs. Smt. Vitthabai @Shalinibai w/o….., 29
(2018).
B. BOOKS REFERRED:
1. ADRIANE KEANE, JAMES GRIFFITH AND PAUL MCKEOWN, The Modern

Law of Evidence, 8th Ed., 2010, Oxford University Press.
2. M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa,
2011.
3. B.B. MITRA, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 20th Ed., 2006.
4. BATUK LAL, The Law of Evidence, 18th Ed. 2010, Allahabad Law Agency.
4
5. COLLIN TAPPER, Cross & Tapper on Evidence, 11th Ed., 2005, Oxford University
Press.
6. DR. ASIS MALLICK, Law of Evidence, 1st Ed., 2011, Eastern Law House.
7. M. MONIR, Law of Evidence, Vol. I, II, 15th Ed., 2010, Universal Publishing Co.
8. P.M. BAKSHI, Basu’s Law of Evidence, 7th Ed., 2003, Indian Law House.
9. PETER MURPHY, Murphy on Evidence, 11th Ed., 2009, Oxford University Press.
10. PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE, 16th Ed., 2005, (Indian Rep. 2007), Sweet & Maxwell.
11. Princep’s Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 18th Ed., 2005,
Lexis Nexis.
12. R.P. KATHURIA, Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, 6th Ed., 2002, Lexis
Nexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa.
13. R.V. KELKAR, Criminal Procedure, 5th Ed. 2011, Eastern Book Co.
14. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 2010, Lexis Nexis.
15. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. 2010, Lexis Nexis.
16. S.K. SARVARIA, R.A. Nelson’s Indian Penal CAODE, Vol. I, IV,10th Ed., 2008,
Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa.
17. SUDIPTO SARKAR AND VR MANOHAR, Law of Evidence, 17th Ed., 2010, Lexis
Nexis, Butterworth Wadhwa.
18. VEPA P. SARATHI, Law of Evidence, 6th Ed., 2006, (Rep. 2010), Eastern Book
Company.
C. STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution of India, 1950.
2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
5. The Indian Penal Code, 1861.
6. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5
7. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
D. LAW LEXICONS
1. Garner, Black’s Law dictionary, Thomas & West, U.S.A., 1990, 9th Edition.
E. WEBSITES REFFERED/ ONLINE RESOURCES
1. AIR Online.
2. Westlaw India.
3. Manupatra.
4. SCC Online.
5. AdvocateKhoj.
6. Scconline.com
7. WestlawIndia.com
8. Heinonline.com
9. Lexisnexis.com
10. Supremecourt.com
11. www.naco.gov.in
12. Dor.gov.in
13. Upati.gov.in
14. www.mca.gov.in
15. Legislative.gov.in
16. Jklaw.nic.in
17. www.india.gov.in
18. www.India.gov.in
19. www.legalbluebook.com
20. www.thehindu.com
21. Indiacode.nic.in
6
22. www.ibbi.gov.in
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents humbly submits that this memorandum is in response to the appeal filed before
this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present Appeals by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Article 136- Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made
by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Anjali is educated woman, age 25 while studying met with Sudhir aged 28 years in a college.
They fell in love with each other. Both were belonged to very rich families. The decided to get
married with prior approval of their families. Sudhir stated that he was helping in his father’s
business and then Anjali and Sudhir got married on 10 January 2012. Anjali and Sudhir were
married according to the Hindu customs. After marriage, Anjali went to her matrimonial house
in Allahabad belonging to Sudhir’s father.
2. After 2 years of marriage, both were blessed with girl child, and named her Gudia. Everything
was going well but, after some time Sudhir started suffering losses in business, Sudhir started
misbehaving with his wife due to over depression.
3. Sudhir’s father was not in a position to provide financial support to Sudhir. Sudhir started
borrowing money from the market, But Sudhir was constantly losses in business, due to which
his marital life was spoiled. Sudhir decided to pay his debts by asking his wife to bring money
from her parents. Initially she agreed and deposited Rs. 10 lakhs in Sudhir’s bank account. But
Sudhir constantly insisted Anjali to bring money due to which her parents got upset. On this,
Sudhir started abusing and assaulting Anjali compelling to bring money from her parents and
he also told Anjali that if he did not receive the money then he will put to death.
4. As a result of severe losses in business Sudhir felt in bad habits, and stared using drugs due to
which, he started beating, abusing and physically assaulting his wife Anjali. Once, under the
influence of drugs, he used such extent of criminal force on his wife that she had to be admitted
in hospital due to fatal injuries. Anjali’s parents lodged an FIR against Sudhir. FIR No. 1000 of
2014 was registered under sections 498A, 304B, 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In which
Sudhir was arrested by police and parent of Anjali took her to maternal home.
5. Due to assurance of good behavior given by the parents of Mr. Sudhir. Anjali family withdrew
the case. Anjali agreed to go with Sudhir on the condition of apologizing and repeating it in
future. Sudhir, parents also promised to protect Anjali.
6. Sudhir and his parents’ behaviour changed after a while, and they began to use harsh words for
Anjali. Sudhir being bullying Anjali and behave badly with her. Anjali became irritated.
However, Anjali became aware of her situation and filed a Domestic Violence Act application
against Sudhir and his parents, demanding separate accommodation and support.
8
7. One day she saw Sudhir in an objectionable situation with another woman which upset Anjali
and she attempted to hang herself in the room. Anjali was timely saved by her in-laws when
they saw her trying to hang herself.
8. After this incident, Sudhir entered the room and discovered that Anjali had written a suicide
note in which she blamed her husband for her death; as a result, Nilesh violently beat Anjali
and took possession of the suicide note, waiting for a favorable situation. Following this
incident, Anjali filed a complaint for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of
cruelty, as well as a maintenance claim under the Criminal procedure code 1973.
9. Sudhir was still in rage, so this was the pinnacle of his mental anguish. Sudhir was enraged
when he discovered that Anjali’s suicide note was missing. Sudhir charged at Anjali, seeing
that she was on the phone, and when he inquired about it, she became anxious and walked
away.
10. Sudhir searched her phone the next day and discovered that the call history had been removed.
Sudhir became even more paranoid as a result of this. He began to use physical force against
Anjali, knocking her out. Sudhir, on the other hand, mistook Anjali for dead and began hanging
her with a rope, intending to turn his crime into suicide in order to flee and flee.
11. Mr. Pankaj, one of the neighbours, saw her hanging from the window and rushed towards
Anjali to save her after just a few seconds. He drove Anjali to hospital to told her parents about
it. As a result, Anjali’s statement sought by police. She told the police that Sudhir and her in-
laws had been behaving badly with her.
12. After taking Anjali’s statement, the police also took statements of Sudhir and his parents and
then started their investigation. After the investigation was completed, the police submitted the
report to the trial court, in which the police considered Sudhir and his parents accused in the
relevant sections of IPC, i.e, U/S 306, 307, 326, 201, 503 read with 34 &U/S 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
13. The trial court combined the previous cases along with this and ordered against Sudhir U/S
306, 307, 498A/34, 326, 201, 503 OF the India penal code awarded rigorous imprisonment of 7
years and compensation of Rupees 10 lakhs. The mother-in-law of Anjali was punished U/S
498a, 326, 201, 503/34 for one year and the father-in-law was given the punishment of three
years.
14. On behalf of the Anjali, the state filed an appeal with the High Court, requesting life
9
imprisonment for Sudhir, seven years for Smt. Vimla (Sudhir’s mother), and 10 years for Mr.
Kanhayalal (father of Sudhir).
15. Sudhir has also appealed his conviction. The high court reduced the punishment for Mr. Sudhir
from 7 years to 4 years, and acquitted his mother and father on the ground that the
circumstances are not of conclusive nature as the chain of the circumstances is not complete so
as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.
16. On behalf of Anjali, the state filed an appeal against all three defendants, requesting that the
mother and the father’s acquittals be overturned. It was also hoped that Sudhir would receive
the maximum sentence possible, as well as hefty fine am exemplary punishment. The
appellants have demanded that convicted Sudhir be sentenced to life in jail, and that his father
and mother sentenced to seven years of solitary confinement. Domestic abuse should be
condemned, and the police should be questioned as to why no charges were brought against the
perpetrators. The hon’ble Supreme court released a show cause notice to explain why the
appeal should be dismissed and the sentence should be increased.
10
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE -I
WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS

JUSTIFIED IN REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD
OR NOT?
ISSUE -II
WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL BY THE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS SUSTAINABLE OR NOT?
ISSUE- III
WHETHER THE APPELLANT FACED CRUELTY OR NOT?
ISSUE- IV
WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF APPRLLANT OR NOT?
11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-I: -WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that that the reduction of sentence by the High Court is
justified. The respondent must not be condemned for life imprisonment under sections under sections
306, 307, 326, 498A read with section 34 and 503 of IPC, 1860.
ISSUE-II: - WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL

BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that in present case, the acquittal of accused Vimla
and kanhayalal are not charged under sections 326, 201, 503, 498A read with section 34 of IPC,
1860.
ISSUE-III: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 3 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted that the respondents are not guilty under section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 as they have never demanded dowry from the appellant’s family in relation to
marriage.
It is pertinent to note that the punishment of demanding dowry is mentioned in section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
ISSUE-IV: - WHETHER THE RESPONDENT INFLICTED CRUELTY OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the respondent never inflicted cruelty to the
appellant under section 498A of the IPC, 1860.
12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-I: WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that respondent must not be condemned
for life imprisonment.
The gravity of offences is not sufficed to charge the respondent for life imprisonment.
It is submitted that life imprisonment means any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which

convicts are to remain in prison either for the rest of their natural lives or until pardoned, paroled or
otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive
this sentence include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, apostasy, terrorism,
severe child abuse, rape, child rape, espionage, treason, high treason, drug dealing, drug
trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe cases of fraud, severe cases of financial
crimes, aggravated criminal damage in English law, and aggravated cases
of arson, kidnapping, burglary, or robbery which result in death or grievous bodily
harm, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and in certain cases genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against
humanity, certain war crimes or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment
(as a maximum term) can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offenses causing
death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life
imprisonment, in 1884.
In Mohd. Giasuddin vs.State of AP 1, the court held that the sub-culture that leads to ante-social
behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturization. Therefore, the focus of
interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging from the society. The infliction of
harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times.
It is pertinent to note that the appellant and respondent, both belong to well to do families.
1
AIR 1977 SC 1926.
13
Respondent’ s father was holding a well-established business. The marriage entered between the
appellant and respondent was engaged by personal choice and mutual consent.
Further, the marriage was going perfectly there were no issue of any kind and subsequently the
daughter was also born to them.
Events got worse when the respondent suffered financial losses. It is to be noted that, since both
the respondent as well as appellant was from well to do families and have good status but due to
the circumstances of business loss, it is difficult to enjoy the privileged life and fulfil all desire of
His loved ones.
In order to fulfill the desire of beloved family, respondent burnt the midoil to make up the losses.
He was under acute mental stress and depression and initiated the debt.
There was no co-operation from a well-educated wife, to make up the loss, inside the appellant
was dissatisfied by the unpleasant monetary condition of the respondent of which she was habitual
of all the luxuries.
The respondent was overburdened by debt, seeks his wife help which is aided initially reluctantly
but later dismissed. In addition to this, respondent seek prescribed drugs due to mental stress and
agony. All the acts by respondent were committed when he was of completely unsound mind and
mental stress.
Indian law recognizes two related but distinct concepts of unsound mind and mental illness.
Although these concepts have been treated as synonymous at times, the law does distinguish
between the two. Mental illness is a medical condition while unsoundness of mind is a legal
condition or we can say legal findings. The Indian contract act, 1872 is a law in a country which
talks about sound mind under section 122.which states that:
“A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the time when he
makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon
his interests. —A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract, if, at the
2
What is a sound mind for the purposes of contracting?
14
time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to
its effect upon his interests." A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound
mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind. A person who is usually of sound mind, but
occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind.
Illustrations
a) A patient in a lunatic asylum, who is, at intervals, of sound mind, may contract during those
intervals.
b) A patient in a lunatic asylum, who is, at intervals, of sound mind, may contract during those
intervals.”
c) A sane man, who is delirious from fever, or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the
terms of a contract, or form a rational judgment as to its effect on his interests, cannot
contract whilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts.
d) A sane man, who is delirious from fever, or who is so drunk that he cannot understand the
terms of a contract, or form a rational judgment as to its effect on his interests, cannot
contract whilst such delirium or drunkenness lasts.”
The wife being well-educated took no heed to ponder upon the drugs cause and not took any
recourse for medical assistance but remained ignorant.
The appellant abused the respondent and his worse unprecedent situation of financial losses. There
was no aid to the over depressed person from the appellant but was overburdened to rehabilitate the
situations of the family.
Some studies shows that addiction is a disease that affects your brain and behavior. When you’re
addicted to drugs, you can’t resist the urge to use them, no matter how much harm the drugs may
cause. You may abuse drugs to feel good, ease stress, or avoid reality. But usually, you’re able to
change your unhealthy habits or stop using altogether.
At first, you may choose to take a drug because you like the way it makes you feel. You may think
you can control how much and how often you use it. But over time, drugs change how your brain
works. These physical changes can last a long time. They make you lose control and can lead to
damaging behaviors.
15
It is pertinent to note that it is a wife who compelled the respondent to take aid of drugs, and escape
from the reality. The respondent even wanted to end his life because of his worse situation of which
he was charged under section 5033 of IPC, 1860 which states that:
“Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person
or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that
person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation. —A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person
threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist
from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.”
In State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram Alias Vishnu Dutta 4, it was held that “to commit a
criminal offence, mensrea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosi
nulla voluntus est. in other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said
to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the
intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens
sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be
responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind
or a person suffering from the mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human
behavior.”
The act was done by respondent when he was of unsound mind due to influence of Anti-
depressants whose adverse effects are aggressiveness of mind. The FDA admitted in 2007 that
SSRIs can cause madness at all ages and that the drugs are very dangerous; otherwise, daily
monitoring wouldn’t be needed. “Families and caregivers of patients should be advised to look for
the emergence of such symptoms on a day-to-day basis, since change may be abrupt”. All patients
being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and
observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially
3
Criminal intimidation.
4
(2012) 1 SCC 602.
16
during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either
increase or decreases. The following symptoms include anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia,
irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness)),
hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with
antidepressants”.
Hence, it is simply exclusive that the accused was under depression due to appellant’s rude and
brutal behaviour, which force respondent to take recourse of anti-depressant which have many
side-effects including aggressiveness and in advance circumstances may lead to reluctant act
however the nature of the act is such that the person is unaware that what is wrong or either
contrary to law.
In State of MP vs. Najab Khan5, the high court, while upholding conviction, reduced the
sentence of 3 years by already undergone which was only 15 days. The Supreme Court restored
the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
The respondent has been charged under section 3066 of IPC, 186 for the abetment of suicide. But it
is pertinent to note that neither the in- laws or nor the respondent were actually involved in the
crime. Even there was not a single instance to charge them for abetment.
Section 1077 of the IPC, 1860 states that:
“A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First. —Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly. —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to
the doing of that thing; or thirdly. —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing.
Explanation 1. —A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
5
(2013) 9 SCC 509.
6
Abetment of suicide.
7
Abetment of a thing.
17
material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2. —Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
The above-mentioned definition of section 107 of the IPC, 1860 makes it clear that whenever a
person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person
can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
It is pertinent to note that the suicide was attempted with very vague nature, i.e., it was attempted
with anger against the respondent when she saw respondent with another woman. The appellant’s
misconception has led to this extreme step without paying need to go into truth of the act. Simply,
seeing a respondent with another woman would not imply any extra marital relation with other
thus leading to severe misunderstanding on vague reason.
In Anil Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh8, it was held that writing a suicide note and impose
allegation for vague reason does not amount to conviction of husband under section 306 9 IPC,
1860.
The respondent was charged under section 498A10of IPC, 1860 which states that:
“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 fine.
Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a 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 a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
8
2012 (3) MPHT 521.
9
Abetment to suicide.
10
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
18
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]”
For the violence committed due to dowry demand. It is to be seen that respondent belong to well
to do family so is case with appellant, mere seeking aid from appellant parent’s, does not amount
to dowry demand.
The respondent being aware of his debt trap only owing some aid from appellant’s parents which
would have been returned after rehabilitation. Moreover, the demand was never raised earlier and
even during marriage. The demand was arisen when respondent face financial losses in business.
The respondent was charged with fabricating and disappearance under section 20111 of IPC, 1860.
But on the whole platform no suicide note is ever found. Neither the appellant nor the respondent
has any actual possession of suicide note which raise false allegation to but on clear picture one
can easily observe that inspite of no physical appearance of suicide note the respondent has been
charged under section 20112 of IPC, 1860, which in itself a grave matter to observe.
Lastly, the respondent was charged under section 30713 of IPC, 1860 with attempt to murder and
alleged that after knocking her out he evade his act and tried to alter into crime as seen by very
witness Mr. Pankaj (neighbour).
However, it is pertinent to note that appellant was caught red handed by the respondent with
someone on call which is refused to inform and in addition she removed her call history. This
suggest that she was conspiring with someone to detain the respondent. Secondly, Mr. Pankaj was
quite suspicious in this regard, who has seen everything. Mr. Pankaj has been near neighbour and
this is presumed that he must be knowing every lit and bit of the house. Also, there had been no
head injury or fatal damage on head of appellant, which might have caused her to become
unconscious. Further, it has noticed that there were lot of inconsistencies in regard to Mr. Pankaj
who was eye-witness of this event.
In Shyam Sunder vs. Puran14, it was held that “the Court in fixing the punishment for any
particular crime should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which it
11
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
12
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
13
Attempt to murder.
14
(1990) 4 SCC 731.
19
was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment
should be proportionate to the gravity of offence”.
Thus, the High Court decision on ground that circumstances are not of conclusive nature as the
chain of circumstances is not complete so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused is
acceptable. Hence, appeal should be dismissed.
ISSUE-II: WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL

BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS SUSTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Appellant’s in-laws’ shall be not be charged
under sections 32615, 20116, 50317, 498A18 read with section 3419 of IPC. The appellant appealed for
seven years imprisonment with solitary confinement is itself a grave absurd against the innocent
appellant in-laws.
It is to be stated that, the families are evading the concept of Joint family. the couple preferred to
stay separately from the parents in order to avoid dispute among them.
When vague case of Domestic violence was imposed on them, they promised appellant’s safety to
the appellant’s parents. They tried every means to settle the dispute and regain normalcy. The
appellant was pushing the in-laws in the case who were even ignorant of respondent’s over-
depression.
There was no evidence of any violence inflicted by the in-laws, how can they be charged under
section 32620 read with section 3421, 50322 of the IPC, 1860. Nevertheless, the appellant in-laws are
charged inspite being knowing anything.
The appellant’s in-laws’ even save her life from committing suicide for vague emotional reasons.
15
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
16
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
if a capital offence.
if punishable with imprisonment for life.
if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.
17
18
19
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
20
21
22
20
This implies that there has been no intention and means to cause harm to appellant
The appellant’s in-laws’ are charged under sections 32623, 20124, 50325, 498A26 read with section
3427 of IPC, 1860. There has been no common intention or prior meeting of mind to constitute a
harm altogether on the appellant. The allegation imposed for the fact done with common intention is
absolutely invalid and gross misuse of law.
Section 3428 of IPC, 1860 states that:
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]”
The appellant’s allegations under section 498A29 read with section 3430 itself proved
dissatisfactory, as they were under no light of knowledge regarding demand. Even the demand was
by appellant’s husband and that to for fulfill his debts.
There was not a single instance where dowry was demanded and caused appellant such a mental
agony to attempt suicide on this pretext.
In Manju Ram Lalita vs. State of Assam 31, it was held that “cruelty” for the purpose of Section
498-A of IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A as it may be different from the
other statutory provisions. It should be determined by considering the conduct of the man,
weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts. The court further held that petty quarrels cannot be
termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of section 498-A of IPC.
In Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. 32, the court laid down comprehensive directions to prevent the
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(2009) 13 SCC 330.
32
(2017) SC Online SC 821.
21
misuse of the provision of Section 498A of IPC, 1860 and In Arnesh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar33, the court observed that the fact that section 498A, IPC is cognizable and non-
bailable offence. It results in harassing the husband and his relatives by getting them arrested under
this section and it is more disturbing to see bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers being arrested
without any fault. Thus, the court laid down certain guidelines which the police officer must follow
while arresting under section 498, IPC or section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and that
such arrest must be based on a reasonable satisfaction with respect to genuineness of the allegation.
The charged in all instances under sections 32634, 20135, 50336, 498A37 read with section 3438 IPC,
1860 stand completely vague. The in-laws’ were wrongfully accused under penal provisions, there
has been lot of inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the case.
Section 3439 of IPC, 1860 was wrongfully imposed on the in-laws. Conclusively it is rightly
presumed by the High Court and revoking of charge of trial court for 3 and 1-year imprisonment.
Hence, regarding all the change of circumstances, the parents are completely innocent which
suffices enough to dismiss the appeal.
It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that respondent never done cruelty
to the appellant and the charges inflicted upon him are false as for committing a crime mens rea is
important and by observing the facts of the case it is nowhere seen any intention to harm the
appellant.
ISSUE-III: WHETHER THE APPELLANT FACED CRUELTY OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted that the respondents are not guilty under section 3 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 as they have never demanded dowry from the appellant’s family in relation to
33
AIR 2014.
34
35
36
37
38
39
22
marriage.
It is pertinent to note that the punishment of demanding dowry is mentioned in section 3 40 and 441
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which states that:
Section 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry: “[(1)] If any person, after the commencement of
this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 6 [with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7 [five years, and with fine which shall not be
less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 8 [five years].] 9 [(2) Nothing in sub-
section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,— (a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage
to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are
entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (b) presents which
are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in
that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the
rules made under this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person
related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive
having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are
given.]”
Section 4. Penalty for demanding Dowry: “If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the
parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which
may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the
Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months.”
40
Penalty for giving or taking dowry.
41
Penalty for demanding dowry.
23
It is important to refer to the ingredients of section 3 42 and 443 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of
this act.
To attract the offence of dowry, “any offence or valuable security should be given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly at or before any time after marriage and in connection with the
marriage of the said parties….
a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
b) By the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person,
c) at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection with the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case persons to whom the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation 1. - [***]
Explanation II. - The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
A perusal of this Section shows that this definition can be broken into six distinct parts.
Dowry must first consist of any property or valuable security – the word “any” is a word of width
and would. Therefore, include within it property and valuable security of any kind whatsoever.
Such property or security can be given or even agreed to be given. The actual giving of such
property or security is, therefore, not necessary.
Such property or security can be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly.
Such giving or agreeing to give can again be not only by one party to a marriage to the other but
also by the parents of either party or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any
other person. It will be noticed that this clause again widens the reach of the act insofar as those
42
43
24
guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned.
Such giving or agreeing to give can be at any time. It can be at, before, or at any time after the
marriage. Thus, it can be many years after a marriage is solemnized.
Such giving or receiving must be in connection with the marriage of the parties. Obviously, the
expression “in connection with” would be in the context of the special evil sought to be tackled by
The Dowry Prohibition Act mean “in relation with” or “relating to”.
Vipin Jaiswal (A-1) vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Pub. Prosecutor 44, Court held that ‘In view of the
aforesaid definition of the word “dowry” any property or valuable security should be given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before any time after the marriage and in
connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or
valuable security must have some common connection with the marriage of the parties and a
correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the
parties is essential. Being a penal provision, it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well-
known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that
if the act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used
which everybody conversant with the trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a
particular meaning.
In Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 45, the court has spoken sometimes with divergent voices
both on what would fall within “dowry” as defined and what is meant by the expression “soon
before her death”. In Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, this court construed
the definition of dowry strictly, as it forms part of Section 304 which is part of a penal statute. In
this case, the court held that a demand for money to fulfill the expenses of manure made to a young
wife who in turn made the same demand to her father would be outside the definition of dowry
under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This court said:
“A demand for money on account of some financial loss or for meeting of some urgent domestic
expenses for the household need of the appellant’s new family and for purchasing manure cannot be
44
AIR 2007’; Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR (1996) SC 3509; chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of
India, AIR (1997) SC 558
45
AIR 2009.
25
termed as a demand for dowry under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as the said word is normally
understood. The evidence of the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for “dowry”
as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was demanded.
The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money were made shortly after the one year of the
marriage. A she-buffalo was given by the father to the daughter as a peace offering to her in-laws
and husband when they are in need. The peace offering had no effect. The daughter was ill-treated.
She went back to her father and demanded money again to give to her husband. The father, then,
went along with his brother and the Sarpanch of the village to the matrimonial house of his
daughter with a request that the daughter be not ill-treated on account of the demand for money by
her husband and other relatives of husband. The father also assured the said persons that their
money demand would be fulfilled and that they would have to wait till the crops of his yield are
harvested. Fifteen days prior to death, Salwinder Kaur again visited her parents’ house on being
maltreated by her new family because of dowry demand. Then came death by poisoning. The cross-
examination of the father of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence in a particular
case in which dowry death occurred. On the fact, therefore the findings of the court given below.
The appeal is dismissed.
As according to the facts, the respondent did not demand money on the marriage but losses in
business and for this the respondent decided to pay his debts by asking his wife means the appellant
to bring the money.
And as the respondent’s father was not in position to support in the financial matter to run the
business properly so he borrowed money from market.
So, the burden of debts was increased so far that the respondent could not handle. That is the reason
for asking the money to pay his debts.
So, I would like to submit that the charge of section 3 46 and section 447 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 was falsely charged on the respondent.
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF

46
47
26
APPELLANT OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted to the hon’ble court that the respondent never done cruelty to the
appellant and the charges inflicted upon him are false charges are false as for committing a crime
mens rea is important and by observing the facts of the case it is nowhere seen any intention to
harm the appellant.
The term cruelty is defined nowhere in the act. It is also not possible to define the same exactly.
Human conduct is so complex or we can say difficult that a rigid definition of “cruelty” is not
possible. The legislature has purposely avoided defining “cruelty”. It is for the Courts to interpret,
analyse, decide and define as to what would constitute ‘cruelty’ in the facts of a particular case.
While deciding, so many factors have to be arisen in the mind.
In particular social status, customs, traditions, caste and the community, religious, upbringing and
the public opinion which prevails in particular society, as well as in the particular locality. Thus,
before deciding as to whether “cruelty” has been proved or not variety of factors which are
necessarily have to be considered accordingly. However, it is almost accepted at large that cruelty
means such conduct of the other side by which the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live
with the respondent and feel unsafe in living with the other. This is of course a very broad
approach.
When a petitioner comes to the hon’ble court for seeking relief on the ground of ‘cruelty’, it is
expected that the petitioner would give particulars of the alleged cruelty. Particulars of ‘cruelty’
have to be given. The mere fact that parties are unhappy of some usual wear and tear, minor
conflicts between them or due to some failings in the temper, would not be sufficient to spell out a
case of cruelty. This is because different temperaments are always the rule. Cohabitation cannot be
disrupted merely because of different conflicts of spouses.
Physical and mental cruelty both includes in the term “Cruelty”. It is not possible to say that every
averment or allegations made against the other party showing some incompatibility amount to
‘cruelty’. It is of course true that of finding out whether conduct of one party towards other amounts
to ‘cruelty’ it is not necessary to prove the intention of the respondent in the absence of the
intention of the respondent if his/her conduct or behaviour makes it impossible to cohabit for any
27
reasonable person, that would constitute ‘cruelty’. It is the result which is more important.
Therefore, it is for the petitioner of state to prove as to what was the effect on her of the alleged
conduct or behaviour of the respondent. As pointed out earlier, it is quite possible that a particular
conduct may amount to ‘cruelty’ in one case but the same conduct necessarily may not amount to
‘cruelty’ in the other due to change of various factors, in different set of circumstances.
Therefore, we are of the view that it is essential for the petitioner, who claims relief, to prove that a
particular/ part of conduct or behaviour resulted in ‘cruelty’ to him. No prior assumptions can be
made in matters including cruelty. Meaning thereby that it cannot be assumed that particular
conduct will under all circumstances amount to ‘cruelty’ vis-à-vis the other party. The aggrieved
party has to make a specific case that the conduct of which exception is taken amount of ‘cruelty’ in
case of cruelty.
It is pertinent to note that the respondent was suffering from over-depression due to financial losses
occurring in his business. After some time, he started taking drugs due to which, he started beating
and assaulted his wife. But it nowhere mentioned that appellant tried to stop him from taking drugs
and even being an educated woman helped him in bearing financial losses.
The appellant did not ever send him to the drug de-addiction Centre. After that, she lodged an
F.I.R under section 304B48 of IPC, 1860 which states that:
1. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall
be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her
death.
Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning
as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
2. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
48
Dowry death.
28
not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.]
Which claim “Dowry Death” as stated earlier that the respondent and his parents never demanded
dowry to the appellant. She charged false allegations on them and when she saw the respondent in
an objectionable position, she did not clarify the same with the respondent.
It is most humbly submitted that the respondent was under the influence of drugs and no measure
were taken by the appellant to de-addict the respondent and also charged false allegation against the
respondent.
Thus, it will be seen that it is not sufficient to contend that charges made in the written statement
are unproved, and therefore, amount to ‘cruelty’. What is necessary further for the petitioner to
prove is that the said charges are not true. The burden is completely on the petitioner to show that
the charges are false. It is a settled law that in all matrimonial causes burden of proof lies on the
petitioner.
Particularly in cases of ‘cruelty’ it is for the petitioner to prove the element of ‘legal cruelty’. If in
the facts and circumstances of the fulfillment of demand.
In The State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps vs. Smt. Vitthabai@ Shalinibai W/O 49, prosecution has failed
to prove cruelty by accused persons. It appears from the evidence of Gopal (PW-1), Gajanan (PW-
3) and Ramrao (PW-4) that they have stated about ill-treatment by the accused persons for the
demand of Motor Cycle and Fridge. It is pertinent to note that the husband of deceased was present
when she narrated to her father and brother. Both Gopal (PW-1) and Gajanan (PW-3) have not
stated that husband of a deceased demanded Motor cycle or anything. They have also not stated that
her husband demanded anything. Prosecution has to prove the guilt as defined under section 498-
A50 and the ingredients of section 304-B 51 of the IPC, 1860. Thereafter, burden shifts on the
accused. Prosecution failed to prove cruelty on account of demand of dowry or cruelty which was
of such nature to drive her to commit suicide. Prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients
of section 304B52 and section 498A53 of the IPC, 1860. Mere factum of unnatural death in
49
AIR 2018.
50
51
Dowry death.
52
Dowry death.
53
29
matrimonial house within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to bring home the guilt under
Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudicate and declare on behalf of
respondents that:
1. The appeal filed by the State Government on behalf of the appellant should be dismissed.
2. The respondents should not be charged under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The respondents should not be accused under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in light of justice, equity and good conscience.
The Respondents
Sd/-
…………………………….
(Counsel for the “Respondents”)
30
31

Memorial On Behalf of Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Memorial On Behalf of Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Memorial On Behalf of Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: __

1ST DR. S.M. JUNIWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SUDHIR AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ABBREVATIONS ACTUAL TERMS

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

I.P.C Indian Penal Code

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedural Code

Cr.LJ Criminal Law Journal

S.C.R. Supreme Court Report

U.O.I. Union Of India

CASE LAW PAGE NO.

Mohd. Giasuddin vs. State of AP, (1975) SC 1926. 13

State of MP vs. Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509. 17

Anil Kumar vs. State of MP, (2012) 3 MPHT 521. 18

Shyam Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731. 19

Manju Ram Lalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330. 21

Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2017) SC 821. 21

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014). 21

Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009). 25

1. ADRIANE KEANE, JAMES GRIFFITH AND PAUL MCKEOWN, The Modern

3. B.B. MITRA, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 20th Ed., 2006.

1. Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5. The Indian Penal Code, 1861.

6. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

E. WEBSITES REFFERED/ ONLINE RESOURCES

Article 136- Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT IS

WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL BY THE

WHETHER THE APPELLANT FACED CRUELTY OR NOT?

WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF APPRLLANT OR NOT?

ISSUE-I: -WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH

ISSUE-II: - WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL

ISSUE-III: WHETHER THE RESPONDENT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 3 OF DOWRY

ISSUE-IV: - WHETHER THE RESPONDENT INFLICTED CRUELTY OR NOT?

ISSUE-I: WHETHER THE REDUCTION OF SENTENCE BY THE HON’BLE HIGH

It is submitted that life imprisonment means any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which

His loved ones.

Section 1077 of the IPC, 1860 states that:

“A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First. —Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Explanation 1. —A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a

of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]”

ISSUE-II: WHETHER THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED VIMLA AND KANHAYALAL

Section 3428 of IPC, 1860 states that:

ISSUE-III: WHETHER THE APPELLANT FACED CRUELTY OR NOT?

a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

guilty of committing the offence of giving or receiving dowry is concerned.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF