RTMNU’S

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S 374 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Cri. Appeal No.

PETITIONER : KULDIP SINGH AND ANR

V.

RESPONDENT : STATE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant

 RTMNU’S Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of law, Nagpur.

RTMNU’S
DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW,
NAGPUR

Name:- SWAPNIL THAKRE

Class:- LLB 3yrs VI semester

Roll No.:- 55

Subject:- Moot Court and Internship

 RTMNU’S Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of law, Nagpur.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 3

4 STATEMENT OF FACT 4

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 5

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 6

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 7

8 PRAYER 10
 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

SC SUPREME COURT

SCJ SUPREME COURT JOURNAL

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

PI POLICE INSPECTOR

IO INVESTIGATION OFFICER

PW PROSECUTION WITNESS

SEC SECTION

SDM SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTERATE

MH MAHARASHTRA

MO MEDICAL OFFICER

CrPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

Cri LJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Del. Admin. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

P.M. POSTMORTOM

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 1|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

 Dashrath vs state of MP 2010 SC 198

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

BOOKS

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

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

 Sarkar, Law of Evidence, (17thEdition)

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

WEBSITES

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

STATUTES

 The Evidence Act,1872

 The Indian Penal Code,1860
 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
 Dowry prohibition Act, 1961

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 2|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

Section 374 Appeals from conviction

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,--

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions

Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section
376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA,
section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal
shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such
appeal.

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 3|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

STATEMENT OF FACTS
(1) Kuldip Singh, native of Lachowal district Punjab, got married to Reshma Kaur alias Paramjeet
Kaur in the winter of 1989- 90. A healthy son was born to the couple in July 1991. Three years
after her marriage i.e. on 6 January 1992, she died an unnatural death out of aluminium
phosphide poisoning which was proved after a medical examination. Naranjan Das, deceased's
father informed the police in a FIR lodged that two years prior her death, his daughter
complained of the maltreatment she received from Kuldip Singh and his parents Balwant Singh
and Gurmit Kaur (appellants in the present case) on account of bringing insufficient dowry.
Naranjan Das further informed that six months after marriage, Kuldip Singh approached him and
demanded Rs.1000 for going abroad out of which he only provided him with Rs.800. It is to be
noted here that Kuldip Singh was abroad and returned only about a month prior to his marriage.
After a period of six months, a second demand of Rs.5000 was made by him. On 7 January 1992,
a day after her death, Naranjan Das went to Lachowal to see her dead daughter and found that
the appellants were absconding from their house. He suspected ill play and reported the matter to
the police.
(2) The appellants were later arrested and tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur. They were found guilty of offence under section 304B of IPC for causing death of
Reshma Kaur alias Paramjeet Kaur over dowry demands and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous
imprisonment.
(3) Feeling extremely dejected and unsatisfied from the judgement, they appealed to the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. On the other hand, Niranjan Das filed a criminal revision for enhancement
of sentence. All this to be decided by the current judgement of 'Kuldip Singh and Anr vs. State of
Punjab'.

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 4|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

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

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

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

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

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 5|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

(i) Kuldip Singh never approached his father-in-law for money with the intention of going
abroad nor any money was paid forth to him.

(ii) The deceased was suffering from depression as claimed by Kuldip Singh and took her own
life to make it a case of suicide and not of dowry death.

(iii) The prosecution is more drawn towards the untimely death of the deceased that is within
three years of her marriage and is overlooking the factum of 'soon before her death' as the
statement of maltreatment was made two years prior her death.

(iv) Naranjan Das being the only witness to the statement of maltreatment/ harassment his
daughter received is unreliable, could be made up and so cannot be accepted entirely.

(v) The lack of evidence available against Balwant Singh and Gurmit Kaur is being overlooked
by the prosecution.

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 6|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(1) Suicide Simpliciter Getting Converted to Dowry Death

There is a well-connected series of chronological events that occur between dowry demands,
harassment, cruelty and death of the woman. It is on the investigation agencies to properly
establish it, failing which a simple case of suicide gets the label of dowry death and justice is not
served.
The investigation agencies from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences
produced should conclude the events leading to death with utmost caution as a fault on their
part might overturn the final verdict given by the judge.
In the case of State vs. Alok Gupta , the uncle of the deceased informed the police of the
dowry demands and harassment inflicted on her and the unhappy marriage which made her
mentally ill as a result of which she committed suicide. But it was later proved by the
prosecution that the cause of death was not dowry demands. Moreover, the deceased in her
suicide note held no one in-charge of her death and thus, it was proved to be a case of suicide
simpliciter and not of dowry death.
In the case of Sudarshan Kumar and ors vs. State of Rajasthan , the Supreme Court stated
that 'circumstantial evidence' is important in cases of dowry death and suicide. Conclusion can be
drawn on the basis of such evidence which could be either direct or indirect. Similar statements
where quoted in the case of State vs. Virendra Kumar and ors

(2) Cruelty under section 498A of IPC

In cases of dowry deaths where the woman has committed or attempted to commit suicide,
the prosecution must prove whether it was voluntarily done due to other personal reasons or was
it abetted by her in- laws so as to make it fall under section 498-A of IPC.
This section was added to the code so as to make cruelty in the nature of torture or
harassment inflicted upon the woman in relation to dowry demands a criminal offence and
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also fine.

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 7|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

Cruelty as defined under this section means "any wilful conduct which is of a nature likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of woman" .
In the case of Durga Prasad and Anr vs. State of M.P , the Supreme Court held that the nature
of cruelty under section 498-A and section 304-B of IPC means the same and should be in
connection with demands of dowry.
In Kishan Singh and Anr vs. State of Punjab , the above judgement was confirmed.
In the cases of M. Srinivasulu vs. State of A. P , Balwant Singh and ors vs. State of H.P , the
court confirmed that the legal definition of cruelty is same under both the sections along with
stating the difference between the two sections.
Interpretation of the term 'cruelty' through various judgements of Supreme Court and High
Courts: -
In the case of Shobha Rani vs. HedhukarReddi , the apex court held that evidence of
harassment on wife to meet dowry demands is a necessary requirement to constitute cruelty
under section 498-A of IPC. It was further held that it's not necessary for cruelty to be only
intentional, deliberate or wilful. In matrimonial affairs, the word has to be understood in its
normal sense.
In Amar Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, the apex court stated that use of inhumane words and
taunts by husband or his relatives for the woman on account of not bringing sufficient dowry will
also constitute cruelty both within the section of 304-B and section 498-A of IPC.
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudan , the Supreme Court stated that not all
harassment amounts to cruelty under section 498-A IPC. It will amount to cruelty only when the
woman or her relatives are being coerced to meet unlawful demands of property.

(3) Dowry Death Charge on Appellants Other Than Husband

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

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 8|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

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

(4) Comparative Study of Dowry Laws:

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

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 9|Page

 RTMNU’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur

PRAYER

In the light if the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities

cited, the Counsel on behalf of Respondent most humbly and respectfully prays before this

Hon’ble Court, to be graciously pleased:

1. That quashes and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction

and sentence and set the present Appellant at liberty.

2. Any other relief be granted which this Hon’ble Court deems fit according to

present circumstances and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Adv. SWAPNIL THAKRE

(Counsel for Respondent)

Place: Nagpur

Date: / / 2023 Respondent

Memorial on behalf of the Appellant 10 | P a g e