JIS UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF KOLLAM

IN THE MATTER OF:

MRS. VISMAYA KUMAR

PETITIONER

. MR. KIRAN KUMAR

RESPONDENT

RAZIBUDDIN MONDAL

TUHIN BANERJEE

ANUSHA BISWAS

MASUM TARAFDAR

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT OF

KOLLAM

[MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

[1]
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………..3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………4
3. TABLE OF CASES…………………………………………………….5
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………6-7
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………..……………………………… 8
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................................ 09-11
7 .PRAYER…………..…………………….……………………………. 12

[2]
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

Abbreviations Original Words

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

P.S POLICE REPORT

CRPC CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

H.C HIGH COURT

HON’BLE HONORABLE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

[3]
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:

Statutes

• INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

• CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
• DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 Books
• Indian Penal Code, RatanlalDhirajlal, Lexis Nexus Publication
• Indian Penal Code, K. D. Gaur, Lexis Nexis.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure by RatanlalDhirajlal, Lexis Nexus

Publication.
• Universal’s , Criminal Manual 2023
• Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Websites
• <https://www.indiatoday.in.india/story/Kerala-woman-dead-allegeddowry-
harrasment-husband>
• <https://www.casemine.com/case>
• <https://www.verdictum.in/SC Grants Bail to Husband of Deceased
U/s.304-B IPC with Restrictions over potential Harassment to Sister-In-
Law>
● SCC Online
● iPleaders
[4]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

TABLE OF CASES
Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik
Nathu v. State of UP
Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N
Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of UP

[5]
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section
177of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 177:

‘177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-

“Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed”

[6]
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Vismaya V. Nair was a Bachelor’s student of Ayurveda Medicines and was married
to Kiran Kumar, aged 31, who was a government servant serving as Assistant
Motor Vehicle Inspector, in 2020. In 2021, Vismaya was found dead in Kiran’s
house at Poruvazhy in Sasthamkotta in the Kollam district of Kerala. According to
her father, Kiran was given 100 sovereigns of gold (1 sovereign contains 8 grams
of gold), one acre of land, and a car worth ten lakh rupees at the wedding.
However, Kiran did not like the car and demanded cash equivalent to ten lakh
rupees in place of it. For this, he used to torture and harass Vismaya. Frustrated by
the acts of her husband, Vismaya committed suicide. Her family and relatives
accused Kiran of her death and lodged an FIR against him. After the allegations
were made against Kiran, he was dismissed from his government service, and
departmental action was taken against him according to the Kerala Civil Services
Rule, 1960.
Prosecution Allegations:
According to Vismaya's family, 100 sovereigns of gold and one acre of land was
given as dowry. Apart from this, a car worth Rs 10 lakh was also handed over.
Kiran, who did not like the car, had asked for cash, which the family refused. This
allegedly led to continued harassment of Vismaya.

FIR Lodged:
Vismaya’s family and relatives filed an FIR against Kiran Kumar residing at
Poruvazhy in Sasthamkotta in the Kollam district of kerala under sections
304B, 306, 498A of The Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) and 3 and 4 of The
Dowry Prohibiton Act, 1961.

[7]
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Issue I: Whether or not the accused are guilty for the offences charged under section
498A, 304 of IPC along with section 34 of IPC? It is humbly submitted before the
Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused, Kiran Kumar , his
mother and father and his sister guilty of the offense of subjecting the deceased,
VISMAYA KUMAR to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Further, the accused are also guilty of causing Dowry Death under Section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 by ruthlessly setting Vismaya Kumar
alive on fire due to insufficient dowry. Lastly, the accused are also guilty under Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the criminal act is done by several persons, in
furtherance of the common intention of Dowry Death. Therefore, the accused are guilty
for the offences of cruelty and Dowry Death with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
2. 2.Issue II:Whether or not the circumstances of the case are of conclusive nature and
beyond reasonable doubt? It is humbly submitted before the Learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate that the circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that
within all human probability and beyond reasonable doubt that the act has been done by
the accused. Further, the burden of proving the fact lies upon the accused & also the
circumstances in which the deceased met her death.

3. Issue I: Whether or not the accused are guilty for the offences charged under section
498A, 304 of IPC along with section 34 of IPC? It is humbly submitted before the
Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the accused, Kiran Kumar
and his mother and father and his sister are guilty of offences of dowry death and cruelty
under Section 304B, Section 498A and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 1.1 That the accused are guilty of offence u/s
498A IPC. It is humbly submitted before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate that all the accused are guilty of the offence of cruelty for dowry under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states, "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 & shall also be
liable to fine. Further, in order to prove the offence under Section 498A the following
conditions must be fulfilled: a. The women must be married b. She must be subjected to
cruelty or harassment & c. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by
the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. In the light of the facts of
the case, the deceased, Vismaya Kumar had been married to the accused, Kiran Kumar
since 2001 and she had been leading a happy conjugal life and later on due to the
intervention of her in-laws she became the victim of dowry to bring more money
from her parents house and failure to bring money from her parents house she had been
subjected to cruelty by her in-laws which is evident as the constant abuses and taunts
amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A...,,, - Thereby, completely
meeting all the essentials fair and square without a shadow of doubt. In Satya Narayan

[8]
 Tiwari v. State of UP¹,2011 Cri LJ 445 the deceased had been subjected to cruelty by her
husband & mother-in-law over the demand of Maruti Car as dowry and persistently
pressed by them after about six months of the marriage & continued till her death. The
accused in this case was convicted under section 498A & 304B IPC. Hence, the accused
are guilty of offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

1.2 That the accused are guilty of offence u/s 304B,IPC.

It is humbly submitted before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the
accused is guilty of offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. In the case of Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita
Malik²,1986 Cri LJ 1510 it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that a person can be
convicted both under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as under Section
498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 because it does not create any situation for double jeopardy.
Further, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961" states. "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
The term "Dowry" as per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961" means any property
or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party
to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parent of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or
before or any time after the marriage. In addition to this Dowry also refers to the property
which a woman brings to her husband in marriage, or the effects which the wife brings to
the husband to support the expenses of marriage."
In S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh³,1996 SCC (4) 596 the Supreme Court was of
the opinion that the phrase demand for 'dowry' was to be flexibly interpreted. In this case,
this meant that any "demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or
her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-
versa would fall within the ambit of dowry under the Act.

Similarly, in the light of the facts of the case, the accused, Kiran Kumar is guilty of the
offence of demanding dowry as he used to constantly demand money from his in-laws.
Hence,it would constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of
demand of dowry. Also, the accused are guilty of the offence of Dowry Death under Section
304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states, "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 & 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." In order to prove the guilt of defence

[9]
under section 304B ,the following ingredients must be satisfied: 1. The death of a woman
should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances.
2. Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry. In the
instant case, all the ingredients of dowry death have been met fair and square as the death of
the deceased happened in other than under normal circumstances where she was burnt to
death. Also, such death occurred within the seven years of her marriage. The deceased was
also subjected to cruelty & harassment by her husband. And such cruelty was in connection
with the demand for dowry of money. Hence the accused is guilty of the offence of Dowry
death. Further, Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deals with "Presumption as
to Dowry Death' and reads as follows "When the question is whether a person has
committed 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.

2)Issue II:Whether or not the circumstances of the case are of conclusive nature and
beyond reasonable doubt?
It is humbly submitted before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the
circumstantial evidence in the instant matter shows that within all human probability, the act
must have been done by the accused. It is one of the established principles of law that a
witness may lie about the facts but not the circumstances. Direct evidence is not necessary
for proving the person behind the crime. The guilt of a person can be proved by
circumstantial evidence also.
In the instant case,Vismaya committed suicide frustrated by the acts of her husband. So, the
overall circumstances unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.

In State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh¹²,989 Cr LJ (NOC) 13 (P&H) it was held that where the
prosecution proved that there was a strong motive for the crime, that the deceased woman
was last seen alive in the company of the accused & that the death was unnatural &
homicidal. In the above- mentioned facts it is clearly stated that the crime was committed by
the accused & not by any other person. Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the charge under Sections 304B, 498A read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been made out due & all the accused
must be convicted.

[10]
 PRAYER

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments and authorities cited, the Counsels on
behalf of the Prosecution humbly pray before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Kolkata to kindly adjudge and declare that:-

a) Kiran Kumar and his family is guilty of offense u/s Section 498A IPC and shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term of three years.

b) All Accused are guilty of offense u/s 304B , 306 IPC shall be punished with imprisonment
for a period not less than 7 years may extend to Imprisonment for life.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience, and for this act of kindness the Counsels on behalf of the Prosecution as in duty
bound shall forever pray.

[11]
-

[12]