1

MOOT COURT 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

AIR 1989 SC 378

WAZIR CHAND AND Anr.

(APPELLANT)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

(RESPONDENT)

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

WRITTEN MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

DATE:

THROUGH

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
TABLE OF CASES: 5
BOOKS: 5
WEBSITES: 6
STATUTES: 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS 9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY U/S 306 R/W SECTION 107 IPC? 13
ISSUE 2 : WHETHER EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT ARE ENOUGH TO
UPHOLD CONVICTION U/S 498A OF IPC? 19
ISSUE 3: WHETHER LD. TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING BOTH THE ACCUSED? 29
PRAYER 31
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Cri LJ / Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

No. Number

Ori. Odisha

Ors. Others

S./Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court
 4

SCC Supreme Court Cases

St. State

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under Section

v. Versus
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Sangaraboinia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 5 SCC 348

2. Pollen Deniel Victoralions Victor Manter v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)

1 Crimes 499 (AP)

3. Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595

4. M. Mohan v. State Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011

5. Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal no. 40 of 2011

6. Kahlashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 195 of

2022

7. G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors (2000) 3 SCC 693

8. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr (2012) 10 SCC 741

9. Arnesh Kumar v, State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273

10.Shushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others (2000) 3 SCC 533

11.B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386

12.State v. K. Sridhar, 2000 Cr. LJ 328 (kant)

BOOKS:

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)

2. P.S.A. Pillai (13th Ed. 2017)

 6

3. Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6thEd. 2009)

4. Gupta and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7thEd. 2007)

5. Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)

6. Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, p. 837 (10th Ed. 2008)

WEBSITES:

1. http://www.scconline.com

2. http://www.manupatrafast.com

3. http://www.livelaw.in

4. http://www.judis.nic.in

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com

6. https://www.ijllr.com

7. https://duelibrary.in/#/home

STATUTES:

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

 7

4. The Constitution of India

 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellant has appeared before this Hon’ble court under article 136 of

constitution of India1. Under article 136 of Constitution of India, this Hon’ble 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 except army courts. Article 136 of the

Indian Constitution gives this Hon’ble court power to accept such matter,

according to article 136 of Indian Constitution:

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

The Appellant humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

1
INDIA CONST. art 136.
 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That, the deceased Veena was married to Kanwar Singh on October 16,

1983. Wazir Chand and Krishna Devi are father-in-law and mother-in-law of

the deceased.

2. That, the deceased Veena sustained burn injuries at the residence of her

husband, she was rushed to the Geeta Nursing Home where she died.

3. That, the appellants Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh as well as Krishna Devi

were charged and tried u/s 306 r/w section 107 and 498A of Indian Penal

Code.

4. That, Wazir Chand and Kanwar Singh both were convicted by the learned

trial court, therefore both appealed before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana

High Court. High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence.

5. That, this present special leave petition is preferred by the appellant to this

Hon’ble Court for setting aside the conviction imposed by the learned trial

court and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY U/S 306 R/W SECTION

107 IPC?

ISSUE 2. WHETHER EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

ARE ENOUGH TO UPHOLD CONVICTION U/S 498A IPC?

ISSUE 3. WHETHER LD. TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE HIGH COURT

ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH THE ACCUSED?

 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY U/S 306 IPC?

It is humbly submitted that the victim did not commit suicide, it was an accident

which occurred when the deceased was making tea for the family. There was no

foul play on the part of the accused, since the essential elements of section 306 2 of

IPC are not fulfilled, hence both the accused are not liable for the said offence. The

prosecution case is only based on assumptions.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

ARE ENOUGH TO UPHOLD CONVICTION U/S 498A OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted that, in the prosecution story, there are vague allegations

levied against the accused. There is no separate role attributed to the accused

regarding the alleged incident. The prosecution has failed to produce evidence on

the basis of which elements of section 498A 3 of IPC could be satisfied. Even

allegations of demand for dowry are too vague. It is further submitted that

produced evidence are not enough to convict both the accused.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER LD. TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE HIGH COURT

ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH THE ACCUSED?

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 306, No. 10, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
3
PSA PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW 1017-1031 (LexisNexis 2019).
 12

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that on the pretext of all the cases

cited and argument laid, the Ld. trial court has erred in convicting the accused and

confirmation of the sentence by the Hon’ble High Court is not lawful.

 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY U/S 306 R/W

SECTION 107 IPC?

a. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a provision related to abetment of

suicide which states that:

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such

suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

b. Chapter V of Indian Penal code is related to abetment in which section 107 4 of

the act talks about abetment of a thing. According to section 107, IPC:

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

4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 107, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
 14

Thirdly —Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing.

Explanation 1—A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful

concealment of a 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.

Illustration: A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of

Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,

willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to

apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

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.

c. It is most respectfully submitted that prosecution has failed to produce even a

single substantive piece of evidence of involvement of any kind of foul play. It is

further submitted that it was an unfortunate accident. In case of suicide, it has been

generally observed that victim tries to set himself/herself on fire by using

inflammatory substance i.e. kerosine, petrol etc. as far as this case is concerned,
 15

there is no evidence available on record that any kind of inflammatory substance

has been found in the cloths of the deceased victim.

d. It is most respectfully submitted that, statement of the deceased victim had not

been recorded after the alleged incident. The allegations of section 306 IPC is only

based on that the stove was placed in a raised platform (slab) which makes it

unlikely that burns were caused to the victim by accident. Investigation officer of

the case stated in the chief examination that the stove was on the slab but a

contradictory statement was given by the photographer who was accompanying the

investigation during the visit to the crime scene. The photographer deposed that the

stove was on the floor. It cannot be denied, after the perusal of evidence, that there

are two possible views.

e. It is most respectfully submitted that family members of the victim, accused

herein, immediately rushed to the nearest hospital after the alleged incident. And

there is no evidence on record that the accused tried to suppress the sound of cries

of the victim.
 16

f. It is most respectfully submitted that, in a famous case Sangaraboinia Sreenu v.

State of Andhra Pradesh,5 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the basic

constituent of an offence under section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment

thereof. And in another case Pallem Deniel Victoralions Victor Manter v. State of

Andhra Pradesh6 court observed that to attract the ingredients of abetment, the

intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is

necessary. It is pertinent to note that prosecution has failed to establish its case

beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution is not in position to invoke assumption

of section 113A Indian Evidence Act, 1872 7 which is barred on the basis of ex post

facto law. Initial burden of proving its case lies on the prosecution.

g. It is most respectfully submitted that, in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of

Haryana,8 Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of similar facts observed that:

Para 34: in the instant case, the possibility of an accidental

death, since the wife was suffering from epilepsy, cannot be

ruled out. Evidently, she was in the kitchen and might be,

during cooking she might have suffered epileptic symptoms

and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire,

5
Sangaraboinia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 5 SCC 348.
6
Pallem Deniel Victoralions Victor Manter v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997)1 Crimes 499 (AP).
7
VEPA P. SARATHI, LAW OF EVIDENCE 324-330 (EBC 2021).
8
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2014) 12 SCC 595.
 17

resulting in her ultimate death. Also DW2, the investigation

officer of the case, deposed that he had recorded the

statement of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was

suffering from epilepsy for the last three years before the

incident and that on the incident day, while she was preparing

meal on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove

and caught fire. She had also deposed at that time that her

husband was away at duty in a different city. The evidence of

DW2 has to be appreciated in the light of overall facts and

circumstances of the case.

In this abovementioned case Hon’ble court ruled out any kind of abetment

of suicide and declared it as accidental death. In the present case there is a

contradiction in the statement of the investigation officer and

photographer. It is not clear that the stove was lying on the floor or it was

on a lifted platform. In the present case, there are two views possible and

the accused has the benefit of doubt.

h. It is most respectfully submitted that, in the case of M. Mohan v. State,9 Hon’ble

Apex court held that there should be a close link between the act of accused and

the act of commiting suicide. If the link is not present, it cannot be said that the
9
M. Mohan v. State Criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2011.
 18

accused has instigated, or intentionally added the commission of suicide. Meager

threats involving the family in false and frivolous cases cannot be held equivalent

to instigation. Abetment thus essentially means some active proposition or support

to the commission of the offence. In the present case prosecution has also failed to

establish such a direct link even allegation of dowry itself are too vague.

i. It is most respectfully submitted that, in another case of Gurucharan Singh v.

the state of Punjab,10 apex court observed that it is mentioned that the necessary

ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To

encompass abetment, the meaning and involvement of the accused to aid or bring

about the commission of suicide is very important. Any severance or deficiency of

any of these constitutes would militate against this condemnation. It is pertinent to

note that accused are not involved in aiding the commission of suicide.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT

ARE ENOUGH TO UPHOLD CONVICTION U/S 498A OF IPC?

a. Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is related to offence in which husband

or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, provision states:

10
Gurucharan Singh v. the state of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011.
 19

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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(i) any willful 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

(ii) 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 of failure by her or any person related to her to

meet such demand.

b. It is most respectfully submitted that the allegations of dowry are too vague and

have no special role attributed to the accused in the present case. Allegation of

demand of Rs. 20000/- – Rs. 25000/- is also a mere allegation only. Prosecution is

not even certain about the amount and there is no substantive piece of evidence

available on record to establish that the accused family was putting any kind of

pressure on the deceased victim regarding the dowry except a few interested

witnesses. Articles, which were taken by the family of the accused, gifts given by

the bride side of family during the marriage, hence it cannot be said that accused
 20

family was subjecting the deceased victim to cruelty (mental or physical) for

dowry.

c. It is most respectfully submitted that, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar

@Sonam v. State of Bihar,11 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed similar situation

and held :

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the

contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general

allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant

alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened

her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and

distinct allegations have been made against either of the

Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been

attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general

allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation

wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in

furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general

and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on

account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned,

since he has not appealed against the order of the High court,
11
Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam v. State of Bihar,Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022.
 21

we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against

him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the

allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do

not warrant prosecution.

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances

and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused

appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go

through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus

allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of

the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has

been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a

criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe

scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be

discouraged.

d. It is most respectfully submitted that, in a similar case of G. V. Rao v. L.H.V.

Prasad & Ors,12 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that-

There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent

times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of

12
G. V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors, (2000) 3 SCC 693.
 22

which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and

live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly

erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in

heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved

with the result that those who could have counselled and

brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their

being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many

reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging

matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their

defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual

agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it

takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties

lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different

courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the

courts would not encourage such disputes.

Similar view was taken in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr.

Vs. State of UP & Anr13.

13
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr, (2012) 10 SCC 741.
 23

e. It is most respectfully submitted that, previously, in the landmark

judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr, 14 it

was also observed:-

4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in

recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in

this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with an

avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman

at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that

Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has

lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are

used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The

simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives

arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, the

bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands,

their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.

Allegations of section 498A are that common that Hon’ble Apex court took

cognizance of the matter and laid down several guidelines in the case of Arnesh

Kumar v. State of Bihar which was a perfect example of the abuse and misuse of

14
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
 24

section 498A of IPC. in this landmark case Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down few

guidelines which are as follows:

I. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to

automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is

registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under

the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

II. All police officers be provided with a checklist containing specified

sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); The police officer shall forward

the checklist duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which

necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before

the Magistrate for further detention;

III. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall

peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and

only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise

detention;

IV. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate

within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy
 25

to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police

of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

V. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on

the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case,

which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for

the reasons to be recorded in writing;

VI. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from

rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action,

they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be

instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

VII. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the

judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by

the appropriate High Court.

f. It is most respectfully submitted that the misuse of section 498A is that grave

that the constitutional validity of the provision was in question. In Sushil Kumar

Sharma v. Union of India and others,15 it was held by the Supreme Court:

15
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, (2000) 3 SCC 533.
 26

"Provision of S. 498A of Penal Code is not unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate a

legislation. Hence the plea that S. 498A has no legal or constitutional

foundation is not tenable. The object of the provisions is prevention of the

dowry menace. But many instances have come to light where the complaints

are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motives. In such cases

acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered

during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the

misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to

prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the

provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to

unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It

may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how

the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations 2. (2018) 10 SCC 443 can

be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the

situation within the existing frame-work.”

g. It is most respectfully submitted that the present case is also a abuse and misuse

of this section where the entire family is implicated with serious allegations which

are no doubt are too vague and specific roles are also not attributed to the accused.
 27

It is pertinent to note that the deceased victim never complained about any kind of

physical violence at the hands of his husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.

h. It is most respectfully submitted that it is important to understand the objective

of the provision to decide the matter. Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v.

State of Haryana,16 Hon’ble Bench defined the objective of the provision and

stated that: section 498A was added with a view to punishing husband and his

relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy

unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper technical view would be counterproductive

and would act against the interest of women and against the object for which the

provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power

to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from

settling earlier. That is not the object of chapter XXA.

i. It is most respectfully submitted that one more view of the court is important to

put here which was observed in the case of State v. K. Sridhar,17 court observed

that: where the prosecution relied only on incident of unhappiness of the deceased

with her husband and the allegation was only in the form of suggestion, it does not

establish criminal offence under either or both of the charges, hence conviction

under section 498A is improper.

16
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386.
17
State v. K. Sridhar, AIR 2003 SC 1386.
 28

j. It is most respectfully submitted that misuse of the said provision is at its peak

which is clear from the perusal of the abovementioned cases. It is further submitted

that in the present case, the family of the bride is deliberately harassing the family

of the bridegroom. It might be because of ulterior motives or they are in sock of

her daughter's demise.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER LD. TRIAL COURT AND HON’BLE HIGH COURT

ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH THE ACCUSED?

a. It is most respectfully submitted that it is very clear from the above-mentioned

cited case laws that courts should be very cautious while deciding such cases.

Nowadays a trend has started where allegations of section 498A IPC are very

common. Plethora of cases are pending before the various courts related to this
 29

section. Conviction rate is so low that it raises a question mark on its use. People

are using this provision as a tool to satisfy their ulterior motive.

b. It is most respectfully submitted that the court has failed to appreciate the

statement of the photographer and decided by taking the view that the stove was

placed on a lifted platform. Conviction was based on the statement of the

investigation officer and allegations of section 498A IPC also played an important

role in the conviction under section 306 of IPC.

c. It is most respectfully submitted that a perusal of the statement of the

photographer, who was accompanying the investigation officer, gives another view

that a stove was placed on the floor and the deceased victim died of an unfortunate

accident while making tea for the family. Allegations of demanding dowry and

cruelty are too vague that the court should not have made its mind of conviction on

the basis of such allegations.

d. It is most respectfully submitted that Ld. trial court and Hon’ble High Court

have erred in deciding the matter and failed to appreciate other aspects of the case

which might have changed the decision of these courts.

 30

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

a. State:

1. That, the decision of the Ld. trial court and Hon’ble High Court stands

quashed.
 31

2. That, the death of the deceased victim was an unfortunate accident.

3. That, the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient evidence and

failed to prove its case.

b. Declare: Acquittal of the accused charged under section 306 IPC and section

498A IPC.

AND/OR

Pass any order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit for the ends of justice.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place:

Date:
S/d________________

Counsel for the Appellant