1

UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR
VITASTA SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY

NAME

ENROLLMENT NO.

COuRSE BALLB

SEMESTER
 2

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF HIGH COURT OF J&K AT SRINAGAR

Cr/APPEAL NO: / 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

TANVEER KHAN AND ANOTHER

VERSUS.

STATE OF J&K

Representing RESPONDENT
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIA PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

L NO
1 THE TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
2 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED
6 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8 PRAYER

THE TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

 4

• AIR : All India Reporter

• SC : Supreme Court

• SCC : Supreme Court Cases

• C.J. : Chief Justice

• C.J.I : Chief Justice of India

• Ors. : Others

• v. : Versus

• SCR : Supreme Court Reporter

• Hon’ble : Honorable

• Art. : Article

• UOI : Union Of India

• HC : High Court

• u/s : Under Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 5

CASES REFFERED

BOOKS REFFERED

• KELKARS, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , (

WEBSITES AND INTERNET SOURCES REFFERED

 https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/sections-498-a-vs-304B-
ipc-are-not-mutually-exclusive-9004.asp
 https://pulitzercenter.org/projects/dowry-system-india-trend-
changing
 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dowry-deaths-supreme-
court-widens-scope-of-section-304-b/article34670458.ece
 https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/life-style/ayesha-suicide-
despite-one-death-every-hour-the-menace-of-dowry-persists-
7215490/
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT BY WAY OF

APPEAL AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE SESSIONS
COURT SRINAGAR UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
1973(CrPC).
 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Tanvir Khan and Ruba Khan entered into a valid marriage as per Muslim laws
on the 20th of June 2013. The two lived with Tanvir’s widowed Aunt and her
brother Ahmed Mir in a joint family set–up. Ever since Tanvir’s parents’ death
when he was just a boy, Ahmed Mir had become like a father to him and Tanvir
was currently working with him in his factory.

2. Tanvir and Ruba’s marriage had been a strenuous one, which had received
vehement uncertainty from Ahmed Mir, who believed that Ruba would be a
difficult daughter-in-law to maintain due to her high standards of living and who
did not agree with Ruba’s family’s liberal, modern and open minded views. He
had also been extremely antagonized when Ruba’s family had refused to pay
dowry.

3. In around mid-2015, relationships between the family members started to

become strained when Ruba suffered a second miscarriage. Ahmed Mir
maintained that Ruba had deliberately triggered the miscarriage since she
wanted to concentrate on her career rather than raise an heir for the Khan
family. Fights and confrontations thus became a usual affair in the household.

4. On the 20th of August 2016, at around 6:30 am, Ruba was found dead at the Mir
house- hold. She was buried the same day and an FIR was filed by her father,
Mr. Baseer at 8 pm, against Tanvir Khan and Ahmed Mir, u/d S. 498-Aand S.
304-B r/w S. 34 of the RPC. Medical evidence showed that she had overdosed
on Xanax medication of the benzodiazepine class.

5. During the course of trial before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Srinagar, the
following facts were established: -

a) Mr. Baseer testified that his daughter had returned home in July 2014, for
a period of 15 days without any prior notice. During her stay, Ruba had
been distant, quiet and lost. When asked why she had returned, Ruba had
said, that, Tanvir and his aunt’s brother were compelling her to sell the
plot of land she had inherited from her grandmother, so as to use that
money to fund their new project at Ahmed Mir’sfactory. Her marriage
with Tanvir was also undergoing several problems. Mr. Baseer maintained
 8

that by forcing her to kill herself, the two had robbed his daughter of her
chance to become a mother, something she wanted to become since the
early days of her marriage.

b) Tanvir Khan in his examination testified that, after her first miscarriage in
May 2014, Ruba had suffered from severe depression due to which she
had gone to her parent’s house for 15 days. He had convinced her to
return home once she was healthier and after they had reconciled on
certain previous disputes and misunderstood demands.

c) Ruba, who was working for a reputed newspaper, had lost her job in
February 2015 due to her inability to meet deadlines and due to her
prolonged periods of absenteeism. After this and her second miscarriage,
Ruba went into severe depression once again.

d) The testimony of two neighbors revealed that arguments in the Mir

household were a loud affair. One of the neighbors stated that once during
a usual fight, sometime in 2014, he had heard a male voice shouting,
“neither did you bring any wealth in this house, nor have you given us any
heir. You are crude, promiscuous and it was of no use to get you married
to my loving Tanvir.” also undergoing several problems. Mr. Baseer
maintained that by forcing her to kill herself, the two had robbed his
daughter of her chance to become a mother, something she wanted to
become since the early days of her marriage.

6. The Sessions Court, on the basis of the evidence on record and circumstances of
the case, convicted Tanvir Khan and Ahmed Mir u/s. 498-A and 304-B of the
RPC. Both have preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K,
Srinagar.
 9

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the demands/conduct of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir can be
brought under the ambit of Section 304-B?

2. Whether the conduct/harassment of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir
amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A?

3. Is there a common intention under section 34 of IPC to cause the dowry death of the
victim ?

4. Is section 113B Indian Evidence Act applicable in this case?

 10

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the demands/conduct of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir can be
brought under the ambit of Section 304-B?

Your honor, Sec. 304-B is made out against the accused Tanvir Khan and
Ahmed Mir as far as the demand/conduct is concerned it deals with dowry death
and the essential ingredients of this section are fullfilled as the deceased was
found dead in the early hours of morning and that too not under normal
circumstances only after three years of marriage and there was also demand for
dowry from the side of accused.

2. Whether the conduct/harassment of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir
amounts to cruelty under Section 498-A?

The conduct of the accused without any doubt comes under the purview of sec 498-A
which deals with cruelty by Husband or relatives of husband of a women subjecting
her to cruelty and the facts are clear that there was mental torture as well as physical
abuse relating to the demand of dowry .

3. Is there a common intention under section 34 of IPC to cause the dowry death of the
victim ?

The death of the victim was done by the accused persons with common intention u/s
34 of IPC as the ingredients of section 34 of IPC are clear that the criminal act done by
several persons In furtherance of common intention of all and in the said case the
dowry death of the victim was done by the accused Mr. Tanveer and Mr. Ahmad both
of them Wanted to grab the piece of land she had inherited from thher grandmother to
use the said money for investing in their new project.

4. Is section 113B Indian Evidence Act applicable in this case?

 11

Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is applicable in this case and the duty is imposed on
this court to presume that the accused persons has committed the dowry death because it is
clear that prior to the death of the deceased she was subjected to the cruelty with regard to the
dowry demand and thus 113B reads as the person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall
presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the demands/conduct of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir can be brought
under the ambit of Section 304-B?

Your Honour,

The respondent humbly submits that it is the clear case of dowry death as the
provisions of 304-B of the Indian Penel Code are fulfilled , the facts and the evidence
collecte by the trial court reflects that it was a dowry death and the trial court have
convicted the accused against which the accused have preferred this appeal but if we
see the bare language of the provisions of the aforesaid sections it reads as under:
 12

304B. Dowry death. -- (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.

Thus, To establish a case of dowry death, a woman must have died of burns or other physical injuries
or “otherwise than under normal circumstances” within seven years of her marriage, according to
Section 304B. She should have been subjected to brutality or harassment by her husband or in-laws in
connection with a dowry demand “soon before her death.”

The essentials can be listed as follows:

1. Under normal conditions, a woman’s death should not be caused by burns or bodily harm.
2. Within seven years of her marriage, she should have died.
3. Her spouse or any of her husband’s relatives must have treated her cruelly or harassed her.
4. Any demand for dowry should be accompanied by or accompanied by such brutality or
harassment.
5. Such brutal treatment or harassment should have occurred prior to her death.
6. If a woman dies as a result of the circumstances described above, the husband and his
relatives will be believed to have caused a dowry death and will be held accountable for
the offences until they can be proven differently.

Your honour if we look at the facts and the evidence collected by the trial court the facts of the
case apparently and specifically shows that the death was caused not under normal
circumstances besides death occurred during the time of night as the dead body of the deceased
was seen in the early hours of the day, besides the medical evidence shows that she had
overdosed on Xanax medication of the benzodiazepine class, which reflects that the
death occurred not under normal circumstances.

The marriage took place in the year 2013 and the death occurred in the year
2013 ,hence the second ingredient is fulfilled the death occurred within 03 years of the
marriage.

The statement of Mr. Baseer testified that his daughter had returned and When asked
why she had returned, Ruba had said, that, Tanvir and his aunt’s brother were
compelling her to sell the plot of land she had inherited from her grandmother, so as to
use that money to fund their new project at Ahmed Mir’s factory. The demand by the
accused and his aunt comes in the definition of the dowry and because of the
compulsion of the accused and his aunt the deceased was facing the harrasement and
because of this the maritial relation between the two was constrained and often ends in
serious quarrel and this behavior becomes the routine of the accused and the deceased
was tolerating this cruelty only to save the relationship.

The deceased was facing cruelty and harrasement which lead her to the state of
depression and she was subjected to torture with regard to the demand of selling the
plot of land and the depression reached the stage of the extreme edge.
 13

It is worthwhile to mention here that the majority of dowry killings occur when a young
woman, unable to handle the harassment and abuse, hangs herself or consumes poison. The
provision for cases like these lies in Section 304 of the IPC and in the said case the deceased
was already suffering from the depression only because of the harassment and cruelty by the
husband and relatives. Same could be ascertained by The testimony of two neighbors
while they revealed that arguments in the Mir household were a loud affair. One of the
neighbors stated that once during a usual fight, sometime in 2014, he had heard a male
voice shouting, “Neither did you bring any wealth in this house, nor have you given us
any heir. You are crude, promiscuous and it was of no use to get you married to my
loving Tanvir.” also undergoing several problems. Mr. Baseer maintained that by
forcing her to kill herself, the two had robbed his daughter of her chance to become a
mother, something she wanted to become since the early days of her marriage.
Your honour , this dowry have become the most worst problem in today’s time and According
to figures issued by the National Crime Records Bureau, despite strict rules against dowry and
associated offences, as well as ongoing efforts against the threat, deaths connected to the evil have
grown over the past 12 years. Between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2012, 91,202 dowry
fatalities were registered in the nation. A total of 84,013 offences were charged and sent to trial as a
result of this.

According to National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) records, a woman dies of dowry in India
every hour on average, with the annual total reaching upwards of 7000. There were 6,966 dowry
fatalities registered last year, with 7,045 victims.

In an incident in 2018, a newly-wed Ganga was forced to commit suicide at her marital home only 72
days after her marriage to Raju Mitra, the major cause being a demand for additional dowry money.
She hung herself in the house, and traces of damage were discovered on the body of the dead,
including a ligature mark, swelling on the back of the head, and bruise marks on the left palm of the
deceased, according to the investigation. The court dismissed the ‘absurd’ claim that the woman
committed suicide because she was dissatisfied with her husband’s financial situation, and went on to
say that consistent evidence on record demonstrates that she was physically and emotionally abused at
the matrimonial home over dowry demands, therefore held the husband guilty (Raju Mitra & Ors. v.
State of West Bengal (2022)).

When the inquiry is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is established
that such woman was exposed to cruelty or harassment by such person shortly before her death for, or
in connection with, any dowry demand. The court will assume that this individual was responsible for
the dowry death. For this provision to apply, dowry death has the same meaning in this provision as it
does in Section 304B of the IPC.

Your honour in support of my arguments I want to refer the following cases:

In the case of Hansraj v. State of Punjab (1984), where the Supreme Court decided that the word
“normal conditions” appears to indicate that it was not a natural death.

In the case of Rameshwar Dass v. State of Punjab (2008), where the Supreme Court decided that a
pregnant woman would not commit suicide until her relationship with her husband deteriorated to the
point where she felt obliged to do so and that the accused is liable to be convicted if he fails to show
his defence.
 14

In the case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007), the wife succumbed to death after ingesting
poison. There was proof from her parents that she had been subjected to ill-treatment and physical and
emotional torment as a result of bringing in less money. The High Court affirmed the conviction of
the trial court. Both witnesses testified to ill-treatment as a result of household circumstances

Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh v. State of Bihar (2005)

In this case, the Supreme Court stated the key ingredients of dowry death (Section 304B, IPC) as
follows:

1. A woman’s death should be caused by burns, physical harm, or some other unusual event.
2. She should have died during the first seven years of her marriage.
3. Her husband or a relative of her husband must have treated her cruelly or harassed her.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be in response to or in conjunction with a dowry
demand.
5. It must be proven that the woman was subjected to such brutality or harassment shortly
before her death.

The case was then taken to Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, a combined reading of

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code establishes that

there must be some material or proof to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment

shortly before her death.

Bachni Devi v. State of Haryana (2011)

This case examines the concept of dowry demand. The Supreme Court declared in this case that any
demand for property or valued security that is in any way related to marriage constitutes dowry
demand.

The case was then taken to the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court ruled that any demand
for property or significant security with a connection to marriage is a dowry demand. It makes no
difference what the cause or rationale for such a demand is. Therefore, dowry death is defined as
harassment that causes the deceased to commit suicide.In addition, the Court said that in dowry death
cases, direct proof is not always necessary.
 15

2. Whether the conduct/harassment of Mr. Tanvir Khan and Mr. Ahmed Mir amounts to
cruelty under Section 498-A?
The conduct of the accused amounts to cruelty u/s 498-A keeping in the view the afore mentioned
arguments The Indian Penal Code (IPC) now includes Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A
(cruelty by a husband or his family) post

However Sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive and represent different levels of
seriousness in related crimes. These rules deal with two separate offences, however, they frequently
overlap. True, ‘cruelty’ is a shared element in both parts, but this must be demonstrated. Section 498A
was introduced in 1983 in response to an increase in the number of incidents of dowry harassment and
cruelty. After just three years in 1986, the legislature had to create a new provision, Section 304B,
dealing with dowry. True, “cruelty” is a common factor in both Sections, The definition of “cruelty”
is given in the explanation of Section 498A.

There is no similar clarification in Section 304B concerning the definition of “cruelty,” but given the
common backdrop to these offences, the definition of “cruelty of harassment” will be the same as that
specified in Section 498A, where “cruelty” by itself is an offence punishable. The “dowry death” is
punished under Section 304B, and it must have transpired within seven years of the marriage. Section
498A makes no mention of such a period, and the husband or his family might be held guilty for
“cruelty” to the woman at any point after the marriage.

The following are the main requirements for 498A to be applicable:

1. The woman must be married,

2. She must have been exposed to cruelty or harassment, and
3. The cruelty or harassment must have been perpetrated by the woman’s husband or a
relative of her husband.

While seeing the facts and evidence the deceased was married in the year 2013 with the accused and
the marriage was contuening and was not dissolved but there relation was strained only because of the
compulsion of the accused and his realtives that she shall sold the plot of land which she refuses and
the accused and his relatives started to harass her and cruelty begans which they continue due to
which the deceased was forced to commit sucide by consuming the anti depression drug ion the huge
quantity the she was found dead in the morning of august 2016.

Your honour,
The word ‘cruelty’ also covers ay wilful acts which are of such a nature as are likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide, any ‘wilful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman, or
any ‘wilful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health whether physical or mental of
the woman. Furthermore, the term ‘harassment’ is devoid of the phrase ‘cruelty,’ and it is penalised in
the following situations:

1. Where the harassment is aimed at coercing the woman or anyone associated with her to
fulfil any unlawful demand for property or valued security,
2. When the harassment is based on her or anyone associated with her failing to meet such
demands. It is self-evident that not all acts of cruelty or harassment are criminally
 16

punishable under Section 498A. This legislation deals with four categories of cruelty
consisting of circumstances of physical violence and infliction of damage likely to cause
grave injury or risk to life, limb, or health,
3. Harassment with the intent of compelling the woman or her relatives to provide some
property, or
4. Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to succumb to the
demand for additional money or refuse to give some portion of the property.
These elements are comparatively different from those of Section 304B, which have already been
listed above.

In support of my arguments I would like to refer these cases

In the case of Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik (1986), it was determined that the explanation
to Section 498A defines the term “cruelty,” which includes acts such as harassing a woman
with the motive to compel her or any associated persons into meeting any unlawful demand
for any property or any valuable security.

In a case where the husband has an extramarital affair and regularly assaults his wife, the
circumstances satisfy the definition of “persistent cruelty” under Explanation (a) of Section
498A of the IPC, and the husband can be found guilty of abetment of suicide under Section
306 of IPC..

K. Prema S. Rao And Anr vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao And Ors on 25 October, 2002

The trial court by judgment dated 19.8.1991 accepted the evidence led by the
prosecution of alleged cruel treatment and harassment of the deceased which
drove her to commit suicide. It, however, held that on the evidence only offence
under Section 498A, IPC is made out

3.Is there a common intention under section 34 of IPC to cause the dowry death of the
victim ?

Your honour,

Sec 34 of IPC reads as under:-

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act
is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The death of the victim was done by the accused persons with common intention u/s 34 of
IPC as the ingredients of section 34 of IPC are clear that the criminal act done by several
persons In furtherance of common intention of all and in the said case the dowry death of the
victim was done by the accused Mr. Tanveer and Mr. Ahmad both of them Wanted to grab
 17

the piece of land she had inherited from thher grandmother to use the said money for
investing in their new project.

The ingredients of sec 34 IPC of IPC which reads as under are fullfilled in this case ,

Elements:

A criminal act

Involvement of two or more people

Shared intent

Act to be committed in furtherance of common intention

The word common intention used in the said section Common Intention suggests a shared
mindset among the people accused of the act, necessitating an initial unanimity.

The Privy Council emphasised the need to distinguish between common intentions and similar ones in
Mahbub Shah v. Emperor (1945). That difference is significant and genuine; justice will not be served
if it is not considered.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925 in which two people demanded money
from a postman as he was counting the money, and when they shot from a handgun at the
postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the suspects fled without taking any money. In this
instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot the gun and was only standing by,
but the courts rejected his appeal and found him guilty of murder under Sections 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code

In Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 1996, the Court stated that the required element under this
clause is the criminal conduct committed in furtherance of a common intention, and Section
34 did not require anything else to be attracted. Although the court would want to hear about
any overt conduct in determining whether the individual had a common intention, the court
emphasized that the formation of an overt act is not a sine qua non for section 34 to function.

4. Is section 113B Indian Evidence Act applicable in this case?

Your honour,

When it has been the question in issue that if there is dowry death then section 113B of IEA
automatically comes into play .

Sec 113 B of IEA imposes duty on the court to presume that whether the person has
committed dowry death and it has been made clear that soon before the death the deceased
was subjected to cruelty of there was dowry death

Section 113B of indian Evidence acts says that

 18

when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty
or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning
as in section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is applicable in this case and the duty is imposed on
this court to presume that the accused persons has committed the dowry death because it is
clear that prior to the death of the deceased she was subjected to the cruelty with regard to the
dowry demand and thus 113B reads as the person has committed the dowry death of a woman
and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to
cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall
presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Same has been held by the apex court in different case laws which are as under :

Section 304B IPC: Dowry Death

One of the most evil practices in India, dowry is unfortunately regarded as a status symbol. But is it? Just like every clothing item in a
fashion store has a price tag attached to it. Similarly, this practice had become synonymous with the context “groom on sale”, with even
bigger and bolder price tags. In 2021, Kerala witnessed the maximum increase in dowry paid by brides. Today the government has come up
with several legislations like the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 etc., to eliminate the dowry system, & uplift the status of the girl child by
implementing many schemes. But, due to the social nature of this issue, the legislation has failed to fulfil its objective in our society.
It is not uncommon that refusing to pay dowry by the bride can even cost her life, thus, resulting in dowry deaths. And UP recorded the
highest number of dowry death cases in 2021. Dowry death brings disgrace to society and so it gets very important to prevent such a heinous
crime from happening. Our criminal law code, therefore, makes this offence punishable under IPC. Dowry death is defined under Section
304B of IPC whereas section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act states the presumption as to dowry death.
This article discusses the meaning of dowry death, the interpretation of Section 304B IPC, the relation of dowry death with cruelty,
landmark cases and many more.
What is Section 113B of the Evidence Act?
This provision deliberates presumption as to dowry death: "When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman & that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person (accused) had caused the dowry death." In simple words, court presumes
accused to have committed such crime, so accused has to prove him innocent.
Meaning of soon before in dowry death
The definition of dowry death constitutes the phrase “soon before” whose interpretation have been done clearly in the case of

Devender Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand

(2022), it was held:
1. The phrase 'soon before her death’ under Section 304B IPC must be interpreted as proximately before the wife's death and not
immediately prior to such death.
2. A Supreme Court bench comprising CJI N.V. Ramana & Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli
ascertained the principles accounting for ‘dowry death’ by analysing the factors given under
Section 304B IPC and under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.
 19

3. Here, the court was hearing a criminal appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision that
convicted the three appellants under Sections 498A 304B and 120B (punishment for criminal
conspiracy) of the IPC due to the death caused to the victim (wife of first appellant)
4. SC upheld the High Court’s conviction of the first appellant (husband), i.e.; a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- while it set aside the convictions of
second and third appellants (brother and mother of the husband) and acquitted them.
5. The Supreme Court laid down the main features of the section 304B IPC authored by Justice
Kohli:

“(i) that soon before the death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry;
(ii) the death of the deceased was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other circumstance which was not normal;
(iii) such a death has occurred within 7 years from the date of her marriage;
(iv) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
(v) such a cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry; and
(vi) it should be established that such cruelty and harassment were made soon before her death.”

7. Also on the other hand, considering section 113B of Evidence Act, it held that “this
presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the
ingredients of Section 304 IPC have not been satisfied”.
8. The judgment, further, observed, “the question, therefore, is as to whether the evidence
tendered by the prosecution would be sufficient to establish the remaining ingredients of
Section 304B IPC with regard to the demand for dowry and preparation of cruelty and
harassment in connection with such demand”.
9. So, “what is relevant is the demand for dowry which was made subsequent to the marriage and
soon before the incident.”

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. Allow the present petition.

2. the conviction passed against the above mentioned accused by the Hon’ble sessions
court Srinagar be upheld and also punishment be enhanced along with penelty .
 20

And pass any such order, writ or direction as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the
present case and for this act of kindness, the respondents shall be duty bound and always
pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.