Team Code

19BAL5104

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

IN THE MATTER OF

SHARDA… …PETITIONER

VERSUS

DINESH & Others …RESPONDENTS

MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERSHIP(LLI-559)

10h Semester

B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY, GHARUAN, MOHALI

(PUNJAB)

2024

MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

a
 Table of Contents

Serial No. Content Page No.

1 List of Abbreviations 1

2 List of Authorities 2

3 Statement of Jurisdiction 3

4 Statement of Facts 4-5

5 Statement of Charges 6

6 Summary of Arguments 7

7 Argument Advance 8-11

8 Prayer 12

b
 List of Abbrevations

IPC : Indian Penal Code

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

HCP : High Court of Purva Pradesh

CrPC : Code of Criminal

ART : Article

FIR : First Information Report

DNA : Deoxyribonucleic Acid

P.O. : Prison Officer

HRO : Human Rights Organization

GOI : Government of Indica

C.A. : Criminal Appeal

W.P. : Writ Petition

CoC : Constitution of Indica

DR : Death Row

R. : Respondent

Para : Paragraph

Cr. : Criminal

DNA : Deoxyribonucleic Acid

CrPC : Code of Criminal Procedure

1
 List of Authorities

A. Books
1. S.C. Sarkar, Criminal Procedure in India (Eastern Law House, 2020)

2. A.P. Singh, Human Rights Law in India (Oxford University Press, (2020) Journal
of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence, Volume 15,Issue 2 (2020)

B. Case Laws
1. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 2 SCC 240
2. Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar 2005 AIR SCW
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2006 (12) SCC 254
4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959) AIR 605
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) AIR 1980 SC 898

C. Statutes

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

2. Criminal Procedural Code, 1973

2
 Statement of Jurisdiction

This Hon'ble Court exercises jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Section 177 of the
CrPC.

1. Jurisdiction under Section 177 CrPC

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

In light of the foregoing, this Hon'ble Court has the necessary jurisdiction to inquire into and
try the offenses alleged against the respondents.

3
 Statement of Facts

1. That Sharda, the cherished daughter of Vikram, entered into matrimonial ties with
Suresh, the son of Dinesh, on 17th July 2022. The bond between Sharda and Suresh
blossomed during their shared pursuit of Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.)
studies at the same college.
2. That Dinesh, a prominent industrialist, and Vikram, a prosperous businessman
renowned for his chain of departmental stores, were well-acquainted with each other,
fostering an amicable relationship between the families.
3. That disturbingly, Dinesh's initial demands for a dowry commensurate with his social
standing, along with extravagant wedding expenses exceeding Rs. 1 crore,
foreshadowed a troubling trend of materialistic expectations.
4. That despite the fulfillment of the agreed dowry on the wedding day, Sharda
encountered a hostile environment post-marriage, characterized by relentless
harassment and maltreatment from her in-laws, particularly Shalini, her mother-in-law.
5. That Sharda's harrowing ordeal culminated in her forcible eviction from her marital
home, compelling her to seek refuge with her parents.
6. That Suresh's visit to Sharda's parental home on 20th May 2023 ostensibly sought her
return, emblematic of his acknowledgment of the tumultuous circumstances she faced
in their matrimonial abode.
7. That tragically, the alleged procurement of poison by Dinesh on 24th May 2023, under
the guise of exterminating flies, marked a sinister turn of events.
8. That the subsequent day, 25th May 2023, witnessed a grievous assault on Sharda's well-
being, as she fell victim to a heinous act of poisoning orchestrated by Shalini, with
Suresh purportedly complicit in restraining and coercing Sharda to consume the lethal
substance.
9. That Sharda's valiant struggle during the ordeal resulted in physical injuries to her face,
lips, and neck, a testament to her unwavering resolve against the perpetrators'
malevolent intentions.
10. That the medical fraternity's unequivocal verdict attributing Sharda's demise to
organophosphorus poisoning unequivocally corroborates the petitioner's assertions
regarding the criminal culpability of the accused.

4
11. That in a bid to seek justice for Sharda's untimely demise and to expose the perpetrators'
malevolence, Vikram, the petitioner, lodged a formal complaint at the Police Station,
elucidating the systematic abuse and criminal conduct perpetrated against his beloved
daughter.
12. That the accused's brazen attempts to obfuscate the truth by portraying Sharda's
treatment as familial benevolence are categorically refuted, given the irrefutable
evidence of their complicity in her tragic demise.

5
 Statement of Charges

Charge 1: Whether the conduct of the respondents constitutes dowry harassment and cruelty
under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code?

Charge 2: Whether the accused are liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) for deliberately committing murder with common intention?

6
 Summary of Arguments

Charge 1: Whether the conduct of the respondents constitutes dowry harassment and cruelty
under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code?

The prosecution contends that the actions of the respondents, namely Dinesh, Shalini, and
Suresh, unequivocally constitute dowry harassment and cruelty under the relevant provisions
of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence presented demonstrates a consistent pattern of demand
for dowry, mistreatment, and abuse inflicted upon Sharda. Such conduct not only violates the
fundamental rights of women but also contravenes the specific legal provisions enacted to
protect them from such exploitation. The prosecution argues that the respondents' actions fall
squarely within the purview of Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, warranting legal
repercussions for their egregious behavior.

Charge 2: Whether the accused are liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) for deliberately committing murder with common intention?

In the present scenario, if the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
Dinesh, Shalini, and Suresh acted together with the common intention to administer poison to
Sharda, resulting in her death, they could be held liable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the IPC. This liability would mean that each accused person would be treated as if they
individually committed the murder, even if only one of them physically administered the
poison.

7
 Argument Advance

Charge 1: Whether the conduct of the respondents constitutes dowry harassment and cruelty
under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code?

1.1 According to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), section 498A states that if a husband or relative
of a husband subjects his wife to cruelty, he may be imprisoned for up to three years and may
also be liable to pay a fine. The word "relatives" in the section is not defined, but court rulings
suggest that it usually refers to the husband's immediate family, such as his parents, siblings,
and in-laws.

The prosecution submits that the actions of the respondents undeniably amount to dowry
harassment and cruelty as defined under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
The evidence meticulously presented before this Hon'ble Court delineates a distressing
narrative of systematic abuse, exploitation, and torment endured by Sharda at the hands of the
respondents.

1.2 Firstly, it is imperative to acknowledge the societal scourge of dowry-related violence,

which continues to plague our communities despite legislative safeguards. The sinister nexus
between dowry demands and acts of cruelty against married women is unequivocally
established in the present case. The relentless demands made by the respondents, including the
exorbitant request for a luxury car and substantial monetary deposits, signify a blatant disregard
for Sharda's well-being and autonomy.

1.3 Moreover, the prosecution contends that the respondents' conduct extends beyond mere
financial demands, encompassing a spectrum of emotional, verbal, and physical abuse inflicted
upon Sharda. The evidence attests to a pattern of intimidation, humiliation, and degradation
perpetrated by the respondents, with Sharda serving as a hapless victim ensnared in a web of
familial greed and patriarchal oppression.

Furthermore, the prosecution underscores the insidious nature of dowry harassment, which
often escalates to fatal consequences as witnessed in the present case. The tragic demise of
Sharda, attributed to organophosphorus poisoning administered under the pretext of pest

8
control, serves as a grim reminder of the pernicious ramifications of unchecked dowry-related
violence.

The prosecution argues that the respondents, particularly Dinesh and Shalini, continuously
demanded dowry from Sharda and her family, despite the initial payment made at the time of
marriage. The demands for a Mercedes Benz and a hefty fixed deposit demonstrate the extent
of their greed and disregard for Sharda's well-being. This behavior amounts to harassment
under Section 498A.

Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003)1: In this case, the Supreme Court held that
continuous harassment for dowry, even after the marriage, constitutes cruelty under Section
498A of the IPC.

Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar (2019) 2: The court emphasized that demands for dowry,
irrespective of the stage of marriage, constitute harassment under Section 498A, and the
accused can be held liable for the same.

Charge 2: Whether the accused are liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) for deliberately committing murder with common intention?

2.1 The prosecution contends that the accused, Dinesh, Shalini, and Suresh, acted with a
common intention to commit the murder of Sharda. Section 34 of the IPC 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 as if it were done by him alone. In this case, the continuous
harassment and demands for dowry by the accused, coupled with the purchase and
administration of poison, demonstrate a shared intent to harm Sharda, resulting in her death.

The prosecution argues that the circumstances surrounding Sharda's death fulfill the criteria for
a dowry death as defined under Section 304B of the IPC. This section states that if the death of
a woman occurs within seven years of marriage and is caused by burns or bodily injury or
occurs in suspicious circumstances, it shall be deemed to be a dowry death, provided it is shown
that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his

1
State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 2 SCC 240
2
Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar 2005 AIR SCW

9
relatives in connection with any demand for dowry. The continuous demands for dowry,
including the initial payment and subsequent demands for a Mercedes Benz and a hefty fixed
deposit, coupled with the subsequent poisoning of Sharda, point towards the commission of a
dowry-related offense.

2.2 The prosecution further argues that the accused engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit
the murder of Sharda. Section 120B of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as when two or
more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by
illegal means. The coordinated actions of the accused, from making continuous dowry demands
to purchasing and administering poison, indicate a premeditated plan to harm Sharda, resulting
in her death.

2.3 State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram3: In this case, the Supreme Court held that when a group
of persons commits murder with common intention, all the accused persons would be liable for
the act under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, irrespective of the fact that the actual
act may have been done by one or more individuals.

In the present scenario, if the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Dinesh,
Shalini, and Suresh acted together with the common intention to administer poison to Sharda,
resulting in her death, they could be held liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
IPC. This liability would mean that each accused person would be treated as if they individually
committed the murder, even if only one of them physically administered the poison.

2.4 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959)4: This case is one of the most famous
criminal cases in Indian legal history. It involved the murder of Prem Ahuja by Commander
K.M. Nanavati. The Supreme Court's decision in this case set a precedent regarding the defense
of "grave and sudden provocation" and the jury system in India. The case ultimately led to the
abolition of jury trials in India and a shift towards judge-led trials.

3
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2006 (12) SCC 254
4
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959) AIR 605

10
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): This landmark case dealt with the constitutionality of
the death penalty in India. The Supreme Court held that the death penalty should be imposed
only in the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment would be
unquestionably inadequate.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish (2005): In this case, the Supreme Court held that if the
prosecution can establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, circumstantial
evidence alone can be sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994): This case dealt with the issue of eyewitness testimony
and its reliability in murder cases. The Supreme Court emphasized that the testimony of an
eyewitness should be evaluated carefully and corroborated with other evidence to ensure a fair
trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.

State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jakkal (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that
in murder trials, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution throughout the trial.

2.5 The prosecution submits that even if the accused did not directly administer the poison to
Sharda, they are liable for abetting her murder under Sections 107 and 109 of the IPC. These
sections state that a person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that
thing, or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or omission is abetted and a different act or omission is done, the abettor is
liable for the act or omission done. The continuous harassment and demands for dowry,
coupled with the procurement and administration of poison, demonstrate active instigation and
participation by the accused in causing Sharda's death.

In submission of these arguments, supported by relevant provisions of the IPC, the petitioner
aims to establish the culpability of the accused for the deliberate murder of Sharda with
common intention, as alleged in the proposition.

11
 PRAYER

"May it please the Honorable Court,

In response to the petitioner's submissions and the evidence presented, the Petitioner humbly
pray for the following reliefs:

1. That the accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini should be held
liable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. That the accused be held liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) for deliberately committing murder with common intention Grant of
any other relief or remedy deemed appropriate and just in the circumstances of the case.

According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Hon’ble Court to adjudge
the above prayers, AND/OR Pass any order that this hon’ble court may deem fit in the
Interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsels for
the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.

COUNSEL FOR PETITONER

12