TEAM CODE- 82

INRTA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SLFJPS, NFSU 2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT, NISAR

JASHPURA , INDIA

UNDER SECTION 197 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SAMHITA, 2023

IN THE MATTERS OF

STATE OF JASHPURA.........................................................................................PROSECUTION

V.

DR. KABIR VERMA AND ORS .............................................................................DEFENDANT

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 .

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................3

2. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................5

2.1 INDIAN CASES...........................................................................................................5

2.3 STATUES...................................................................................................................7

2.4 CONSTITUTIONS REFERRED......................................................................................7

2.4 BOOKS REFERRED...................................................................................................7

2.5 DICTIONARIES REFERRED.......................................................................................8

2.6 WEBSITES REFERRED .............................................................................................8

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS.........................................................................................9

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................10

5. ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................................................15

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..............................................................................................16

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................18

7.1 THAT THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE

THEY ARE CHARGED OF?

7.2 WEATHER THE WORK LOAD AND JOB PRESSURE WERE THE REASONS FOR

ANJALI’S SUICIDE?

8. PRAYER.............................................................................................................................35

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 2

 .

-TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS-

Abbreviation Explanation

¶ Paragraph

§ Section

& And

A.C. Appellate Cases

AD Apex Decision

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Anr. Another

A.P. Andhra Pradesh

Bom. Bombay

Cr. L. J. Criminal Law Journal

B.N.S.S. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Del Delhi

D.M.C. Divorce & matrimonial cases

D.P.A Dowry Prohibition Act

Ed. Edition

FB Full Bench

Guj. Gujarat

H.C. High Court

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

i.e. That is

B.N.S. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

I.E.A. Indian Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Jhar Jharkhand

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 3

 .

Kant. Karnataka

Ker. Kerala

LR Law Report

Mad. Madras

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

NCT National Capital Territory

Ori Orissa

Ors. Others

P. Page No.

P&H Punjab & Haryana

Pat. Patna

Raj Rajasthan

r/w Read with

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- Signed

Supp. Supplementary

U.O.I. Union of India

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/Art Under Article

u/s Under section

v. Verses

Vol. Volume

W.B. West Bengal

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 4

 .

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

-INDIAN CASES-

1. Akula Ravinder v. State of AP AIR 1991 SC 1142.

2. Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 763
3. Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand 2002 Cr. LJ 3973 (Jhar).
4. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 2839
5. Bajrang v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 134 (Raj)
6. Balasaheb Annappa Whagmare v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 1 DMC 249.
7. Balwant singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724
8. Bhola Ram v. State Of Punjab AIR 2014 S.C. 241
9. Biswajit Halder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1 SCC 202
10. Durga Parsad v. State of MP 2010 Cr LJ 3419
11. Ghusabhai Risangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2015 SC 2670
12. Gurnam Singh v. State 1998 Cr. Lj 3694 (P&H)
13. Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Ch Cr C (HC) 484 (P&H)
14. Harban Singh v. Gurcharan Kaur, 1990 Cr LJ 1591
15. Hem Chand v. State of Haryana (1994) 3 Crimes (SC)
16. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration AIR 2000 SC 3559
17. InderSain v. The State (Del), 1981 Cr LJ 1116,
18. IS Bind v. State of Gujarat 2013 (125) AIC 102, P. 103
19. Jalam v. State of MP 2014 Cr LJ 360 (MP)
20. Jatashankarsah v. State of Bihar 2013 Cr LJ 1992(Pat).
21. Jawaharmaghi Sindhi Bhansale v. State 2006 Cr LJ 1717 (Guj.)
22. K. Prema S. Rao and Another v. Yadlasrinivasa Rao and others, 2003 (1) SCC 217
23. KailashVati v. AyodhyaPrakash (1977) 79 P.L.R. 216(F.B.)
24. Kaliaya perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR SCW 438
25. Kamesh panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2005 Cr LJ 1418 (SC)
26. Kanchi Ramachandra v. State of A.P., 1995 (Supp.) 4 SCC119
27. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab2000 CR LJ 2993
28. Krishan Lal v. Union of IndiaCr LJ 3472 (P&H) (FB)
29. Kunhiaabdulla v. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 1731.
30. LokeshKaushik & Ors. v. state, SC On 28th April, 2009.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 5

 .

31. Malyala Vishwanatha Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 Cr LJ (NOC) 11 (AP)

32. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam On 29 May, 2009
33. Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2012 Cr LJ (NOC) 228 (Raj.)(DB).
34. Mungeshwar Prasad Chaurasia v. State of Bihar 2002 Cr LJ 3505 (S.C.)
35. Murali v. State of Kerala, 2006 DMC 589
36. Naryanamurty v. State Of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC 512.
37. Niranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1998 Cr LJ 630 (Ori)
38. Nunna Venkateswarlu Alias v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) Cr LJ 108
39. Pyarelal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 2 SCC 552
40. Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2002 DLT 147.
41. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690
42. Ram Vishnu Gupta and 2 Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 DMC 489
43. RavanBalu Indalkar v. State Of Maharahtra, 2012 Bom cr (Cri) 106
44. Sankar Prasad Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1991 Cr LJ 639,
45. Saritha v. R. Ramachandran (2003) DMC 37.
46. SarlaPrabhakar Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra 1990 Cr L.J. 407
47. Satya Narayan And Anr v. State 2003 Cr LJ 1228 (Bom) (DB)
48. Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand and Ors, 2003 Cr. LJ 2759.
49. Sharadbirdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
50. Shersingh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 980
51. Shobha Rani v. MadhukarReddi1988 AIR 121
52. State of Andhra Pradesh v. KalidindiSahadevudu 2012 Cr LJ 2302 (AP).
53. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yog Raj1997 Cr LJ 2033 (HP) (DB)
54. State of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda 2003 I AD 601 (SC).
55. State of Karnataka v. Neelaawwa 2002 Cr LJ 3981 (Kant)
56. State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal Shukla(1997) 11 SCC 26
57. SunkaraSuri Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh Cr LJ 1480 (AP).
58. Thangappandian v. State by DSP, Mettur, (1998) Cr LJ 993 (Mad).
59. Vinayakaro v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 114 (6) Bom. LR 3528
60. Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 P&H 372 (FB).
61. Viralu v. State of A.P., 1998 Vol.3 Crimes 549.
62. Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2004) 3 SCC 98

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 6

 .

-STATUES-

1. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SAMHITA, 2023

2. INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
3. BHARTYA NYAY SAMHITA, 2023
4. BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
5. THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, NO. 28, ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, 1961

-CONSTITUTION -
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

-BOOKS REFERRED-

1. Aiyar P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, (2nd ed. 2006).

2. Dr. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (8th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2010).
3. Dunham Beth Walston, Introduction to Law, (6th ed., 2011).
4. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, (2nd edition 1983).
5. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th Ed., Universal Law Publication,2015)
6. Halsbury’s Laws of England, (5th ed. 2016).
7. Halsbury’s Laws of India (2012)
8. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)
9. KD Gaur, Bharatiy Nyay Samhita, (15th Ed. , Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016)
10. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 7th Ed. , Lexis Nexis, 2016)
11. Mayne, Hindu Law and Usage, (10 ed. 1938).
12. R. A. Nelson’s, Indian Penal Code (11th ed. 2016).
13. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Bharatiy Nyay Samhita, (33rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
14. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
15. SC Sarkar, Bharatiy Nyay Samhita,2023 (3rd Ed., Dwivedi Law Agency, 2014 )
16. SC Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure: An Encyclopaedic Commentary on the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 (11th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
17. Sir Dinshah Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, (7th ed.).
18. V.N. Shukla's, Constitution of India, (12th Ed. Eastern Book Company, India 2013).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 7

 .

-DICTIONARIES REFERRED-

1. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th Ed., Thomas & West, U.S.A 1990)
2. P Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, (2nd Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2006)

-WEBSITES REFERRED-

1. www.manupatrafast.in (Last visited on 29th August, 2017)

2. www.scconline.com (Last visited on 5th September, 2017)
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in (Last visited on 6th September, 2017)
4. www.westlawindia.com (Last visited on 26th August, 2017)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 8

 .

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Jashpura under section 197,
Bharatiya nagarik suraksha samhita , 2023 which states :

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

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 9

 .

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-

-BACKGROUND-

(¶1.) Anjali is a 24 year old woman who is an IT professional working at Technosys, a multi-
national company. She was recruited in the month of March 2022 by the MNC through campus
placement. Anjali is the only daughter to her parents and they live at Dillai district in the state
of Jashpura. She is very sensitive in nature. For the very same reason, she found the deadlines
and volume of work very tiresome and stressful.

(¶2.) After two months of joining, Anjali’s parents fixed her marriage with one Kabir, who is a Doctor
by profession. He resides in the neighbouring district Nisar with his parents. His sister Kusum, who is
a divorcee, also stays in the same house.

-THE MARRIAGE-

(¶3.) Anjali and Kabir had taken two weeks leave for their marriage. They tied the knots on 2nd April
2022. After marriage, Anjali moved into Kabir’s house.

-THE INCIDENT-

(¶4.) On the very next day of marriage, Kabir’s mother suggested Anjali to hand over all her gold
ornaments for safe custody. Though hesitant, she handed over the same as she didn’t want to offend her
mother-in-law. When she informed the matter to Kabir, he responded that his mother took the gold for
keeping it in the locker. The next day, the family had to attend a function and Anjali was shocked and
surprised to see that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were wearing her ornaments. When she
mentioned this to Kabir, he said that the gold was never meant for Anjali and it was a gift to his family.
On returning home, Kusum called Anjali into her room and said that she has plans to sell Anjali’s gold
ornaments as they looked very cheap. Kusum also mocked at Anjali and mentioned that Anjali’s parents
were frauds who neither gave what was promised nor assured quality. Anjali burst into tears and went
to her bedroom. When she complained to Kabir, he said that Anjali was very insensitive and scolded
her.

(¶5.) The next day, while having breakfast, Kabir’s parents told Anjali that Kabir has always dreamt of
opening his own private clinic close to house. Apparently, Anjali’s father had gifted their ancestral land
to Anjali and this land was just five kilometers away from Kabir’s house. Kabir reminded this to Anjali
and demanded for ransferring the title of the property in his name. Anjali replied that she wanted discuss
the same with her parents. Immediately, Kusum shouted at Anjali and said that she should feel ashamed
of herself to sit and eat in Kabir’s house doing nothing. Anjali was very upset and went to her bedroom

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 10

 .

upstairs. Kabir followed her and said that her behavior was very disrespectful. Though Anjali called her
mother and informed about these, her mom told that these were very normal and Anjali should learn to
adjust with Kabir’s family. Similar instances continued in the house. Anjali cancelled her leave for the
second week and joined back at office. As she was on leave for a week, Anjali had a huge backlog and
so many deadlines to meet. Anjali had a daily three-hour journey by train to reach her office at Rustri
and most of the time she was late. This whole troublesome environment continued for an year. In the
month of June, 2024, she was warned by the HR Department for repeated instances of late punching.
By the page 2 end of June, as she had voluminous work to finish, Anjali missed two of her important
project deadlines which resulted in loss of clients. On 5th July, 2024, her superior lashed out at her and
warned that she will be fired if she is unable to bring back the clients before the month end. Anjali was
stressed and could not think of any way to bring back the clients. While she was sitting tensed and upset,
Anjali was getting repeated calls and messages from her father-in-law and Kabir to know if she spoke
to her parents regarding the land registration. She neither picked the calls nor replied to the messages.
Kabir was very angry and he asked Anjali for an explanation when she came home. However, his father
intervened and told them to sleep and that the matter can be discussed in the morning

Next day morning, Anjali was seen hanging in a bedroom downstairs at Kabir’s house. Police was
informed about the death. Anjali’s parents also reached Kabir’s house

(¶6.) Anjali’s parents blamed Kabir and famil©by stating that their daughter was stressed about
her job and she committed suicide out of work pressure.

Police booked Kabir and his family for dowry death and the matter is posted for trial before
the Sessions Court, Nisar. Nisar is a district in the state of Jashpura, Union of Indiana

-CHARGES-

(¶7.) BNS 2023, Section 80, 108, 85, 61(2), 3(5)

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 © 4.

-OTHER DETAILS-

Post mortem report

Name of Hospital : Nisar Government Hospital, Nisar, Jashpura

Date : July 05, 2024

Post Mortem Report No. ERL-4/02/07/2024

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 11

 .

Conducted by: Dr Sundar Shetty

Time of receiving the body: 11:32 AM on July 06, 2024

Time of commencement of Autopsy: 01:00 PM

Time of conclusion of Autopsy: 04:00 PM

Case Details

1. Name of deceased as per record: Mrs Anjali Verma

2. Father's/ Husband's Name: Dr Kabir Verma

3. Address #58/28, Gokul Niwas, MK Road, Nisar,Jashpura

4. Approximate Age: 24

5. Sex: Female

6. Body sent by JK Hospital, Nisar, Jashpura

7. Police Station: Nisar Police Station

General Observations

1. Length of the body: 5 feet 4 inches

2. Weight: 65 kg

3. Body Built: Average built

4. Identification Marks: A mole on upper lip

5. Finger Prints recorded Yes

6. Clothes White Kurta and blue leggings, one nose ring, a

pair of earrings and a mangalsutra

External Examination

The scalp is round. The scalp hair is black and long. Full rigor mortis. The ears and nose show
no abnormalities. The ears are bilateral prominent. Both eyes were open with dilated

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 12

 .

pupils. The mouth and lips are red. The tongue is white and long. Total number of teeth present
is 31 and is white.

Saliva was dribbling from her mouth. Description of injuries around neck- petechiae, edema,
cyanosis. Abrasions present over both wrists and knees. 1x2 cm laceration marks over left
shoulder.

Internal Examination

organs occupy normal positions, and all the internal organs are in a state of autolysis. There are
no adhesions or mass lesions.

i. Head and Neck: Brain: weighs 1100 grams. Signs of congestion and petechial aemorrhage.

ii. Neck: Signs of local injury

iii. Tissues: Under the ligature mark, the subcutaneous tissue show dry and glistening white
band.

iv. Lymph nodes: No congestion and haemorrhage.

v. Blood Vessels (carotid artery): No rupture

vi. Vertebrae (cervical): No fracture

vii. Cartilage conditions: Posterior horn of the thyroid cartilage fractured from the pressure on
the thyroid ligament

viii. Ribs, Oesophagus & Diaphragm: Normal

ix. Chest Wall: Congestion and petechial haemorrhage

x. Trachea & Bronchial tree: Hyperaemia

xi. Lungs: Oedematous

xii. Heart: weighs 450 grams and is pale

xiii. Abdomen: Abdominal wall is normal and congestion in stomach wall.

xiv. Both Intestines, Gall Bladder, Spleen, Pancreas, Kidneys & Pelvic cavity: Pale

xv. Genital Organs: Normal

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 13

 .

xvi. Liver: Congestion

xvii. Digestive System: The stomach contains food particles, which includes fruits and rice,
with traces of liquor. 0.35 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) has been found in the body. No
presence of any poisonous substance.

Concluding Remarks

1. Approximate Time of Death 9-12 hours prior to when post mortemCommenced

2. Cause of Death The post-mortem examination established the cause of death was asphyxia

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 14

 .

- ISSUES RAISED -

WHETHER THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THEY ARE
CHARGED OF?

II

WEATHER THE WORK LOAD AND JOB STRESS THE REASONS FOR ANJALI’S SUICIDE?

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 15

 .

- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -

I. WHETHER THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THEY ARE
CHARGED OF?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused is not guilty for
committing the offence of dowry death u/s 80, BNS, 2023. All the ingredients required to prove
the dowry death do not stand established from the given facts and circumstances. The deceased
was not subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry, soon before her death. In the
present case, none of the ingredients are being fulfilled. Thus, § 80, BNS, is not applicable.

The acts of the in-laws do not amount to cruelty as covered u/s 85, BNS. It is further contended
that the evidence on record do not support the plea taken on behalf of the respondent that the
deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of cruelty or because of the repeated
demands made by the accused. There was simply no evidence of harassment by the appellants;
rather it was a case of misunderstanding on the part of Anjali which led to the commission of
suicide by her. There was no evidence that any act of the appellants had abetted the commission
of suicide by her. The fact that no single complain was lodged by the deceased against the
accused in the past two years and three months shows that the deceased was happy in the house
of her in-laws.

The family of Dr. Kabir Verma is not accused of aiding or encouraging any wrongdoing.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of their intent to harm.

There is no indication that Kabir's family had any intention to harm Anjali, let alone participate
in a criminal conspiracy. Their actions do not suggest any motive to benefit from her death or
suicide.

There was no demand of dowry from the in-laws of Anjali. There is no evidence to show that
there were constant demands of dowry from Verma’s family. There is a large difference
between dowry and stridhan and a demand for land on account of some financial stringency or
for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 16

 .

II. WHETHER THE WORK LOAD AND THE JOB STRESS WERE THE REASONS FOR ANJALI’S

SUICIDE?

Anjali's excessive workload and looming deadlines, combined with her lengthy daily commute,
contributed to a highly stressful work environment. Her repeated tardiness and missed
deadlines led to warnings and reprimands from her superiors, increasing her anxiety and job
insecurity. These factors, coupled with her sensitive nature, may have played a significant role
in her tragic decision.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 17

 .

- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED -

I. THAT THE IN-LAWS OF THE DECEASED HAVE NOT COMMITTED THE OFFENCE THEY ARE
CHARGED OF?.

SECTION 80, BNS

(¶1.) It is humbly submitted by the respondents that in the present case, the offence of Dowry
death is not committed by the accused, against the deceased, Mrs. Anjali. As per the evidences,
no proof can be established

4(¶2.) To prove dowry death, the following ingredients of § 801 should be fulfilled2:

(a) Death of woman was caused any burns or bodily injury or had occurred other than under
normal circumstances.3
(b) Such death should have occurred within 7 year of marriage.4
(c) The deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband.
(d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry5
(e) To such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her
death.6

Only 1st and 2nd ingredient of aforementioned section followed in our present case.

1.1 DECEASED WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT

(¶4.) The proximity of time between the alleged ill-treatment and time of death is a highly
relevant factor, and is an essential and necessary evidence for proof of dowry death.7

1
Section 80, BNS, 2023
2
Vinayakaro v. state of Maharashtra (2012) 114 (6) Bom LR 3528; Shersingh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015
SC 980
3
AkulaRavinder v. State of AP, AIR 1991 SC 1142
4
Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand, 2002 Cr. LJ 3973( Jhar)
5
BiswajitHalder v. State of W.B., (2008) 1SCC 202
6
K. Prema S. Rao and Another v. YadlasrinivasaRao and others, 2003 (1) SCC 217
7
Niranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1998 Cr LJ 630 (Ori)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 18

 .

(¶5.) The ordinarily dictionary meaning of ‘cruelty’ would not be applicable to hold that it is
vague being interpreted in so many ways. Obviously, the legislature has defined the term
‘cruelty’ while keeping in view the object which was required to be achieved.8

(¶6.) In the decided case of Jawaharmaghi Sindhi Bhansale v. State9, The Hon’ble SC observed
that, where the Father-in-law was, in a case was subject to vague accusation of ill-treatment
but since there was no other evidence which could prove that the father-in-law was inflicting
physical and mental cruelty on the deceased wife, hence order of conviction and sentence
passed were set aside.

(¶7.) In the present case there is no evidence to show that the deceased has been subjected to
cruelty or harassment prior to her death, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The
parents of the deceased did not lodge any police complaint about the alleged demand and
torture for the same but filed the complaint only after the death of their daughter, which clearly
shows that there was no cruelty or harassment or ill-treatment, by the in-laws of the deceased.

1.3 NOT FALLING UNDER ‘DEMAND OF DOWRY’

(¶8.) Explanation to section 80, BNS refers to dowry ‘as having the same meaning as in § 2 of
the DPA 1961’.The term “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to
be given either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the
marriage or by the parent of either party to the marriage or to any other person.10Merely making
of demand would not attract the provision of § 80, BNS.11

(¶9.) In the present case, the accused never asked for anything from the deceased, they only
asked for a share in the land that was given to the deceased by her father as a part of ‘stridhan’,
which does not come under the ambit of dowry. Similarly, in the case of Rohtash v. state of
Haryana, HC convicted the accused, for demanding money from the deceased for establishing
business. While allowing the appeal against the judgment of the HC of P&H, the apex court by
overruling the judgment of the P&H HC held that the demand of the money for establishing
business- is not necessarily dowry demand.

8
KrishanLal v. Union of India Cr LJ 3472 (P&H) (FB).
9
2006 Cr.LJ 1717 (Guj)
10
Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
11
Bhola Ram v. State Of Punjab Air 2014 S.C. 241.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 19

 .

(¶10.) Further, In case of Gurnam Singh v. State12, where the accused were charged for
harassing the victim for bringing inadequate amount of money but demand for dowry was not
proved and hearsay evidence of the witnesses could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It
was held that offence u/s 85 was not made out and accused was entitled to acquittal.

(¶11.) When there was no evidence on record to show that the land was demanded as dowry
though it was given by the father of the deceased in the marriage as pasupukumuma, the
harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased by the husband after the marriage, to force her
to transfer the land in his name was ‘not in connection with any demand for dowry’13

1.4 NO CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT ‘SOON BEFORE HER DEATH’

(¶12.) The expression ‘soon before her death’ used in the subtractive § 80, BNS, and § 113B,
BSA, is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and
expression ‘soon before’ is not defined. When the demand of dowry is made soon after
marriage by accused but beyond the range of ‘soon before death’ of the deceased, §80, BNS,
is not attracted.14

(¶13.) A conjoint reading of §113B, BSA, 1872 and § 80, BNS, shows that there must be
material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.
Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of any natural or accidental death so as to bring it
within the purview of the ‘death occurrence otherwise than in normal circumstances’
prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment
and only in that case presumption operates. But prosecution failed to do so. If alleged incident
of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium for
the women concerned, it would be of no consequence.15

(¶14.) Cruelty soon before death for demand for dowry is necessary constituents without which the
offence is not complete.16In case of Kaliayaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu17specifically said
“such cruelty or harassment was committed soon before her death” the expression ‘soon before

12
1998 Cr.Lj 3694 (P&H)
13
Ibid.
14
Mungeshwarprasad Chaurasia v. State Of Bihar 2002 Cr LJ 3505 (S.C.)
15
Kameshpanjiyar v. State Of Bihar 2005 Cr LJ 1418 (SC); Naryanamurty v. State Of Karnataka (2008) 16 SCC
512.
16
Bajrang v. State Of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 134 (Raj).
17
AIR SCW 4387.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 20

 .

her death’ has to be accorded its appropriate meaning in the facts and circumstances of a given
case.

1.5 THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE

(¶15.) In case of Sharadbirdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra18, there in, while dealing
with circumstantial evidence, it has been held that onus on the prosecution to prove that the
chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defense
or plea. In the present case, nowhere from the facts of the case, it is derived that such a chain
of circumstantial evidence exist.

1.6 PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113B, INDIAN BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM 1872

(¶16.) In order to establish the offence u/s 80, BNS, the prosecution is obliged to prove that the
death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances and such death occurs within 7 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. Such harassment and cruelty must be made in connection with any demand for
dowry.19

(¶17.) Also, it is pertinent to note that this presumption can only be raised only on proof of the
following essentials which means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is
being tried for the offence u/s 80 BNS. Therefore, it could be said that the deceased was not
being ill- treated or harassed with cruelty on account of dowry.

(¶18.) In the case of Durga Parsad v. State of MP20, court held that if the requirements of § 80
of BNS and § 113-B of BSA can’t be satisfied by the prosecution, accused must be acquitted.
In the matter present before the Court it is distinguishable from the above cited facts and
circumstances that the entire three requisite to form an evident case of dowry death cannot be
established. Also from various cases cited and facts provided, the respondents have tried to

18
AIR 1984 SC 1622.
19
Hem Chand v. State Of Haryana (1994) 3 Crimes (SC); State Of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda 2003
I AD 601 (SC).
20
2010 Cr.LJ 3419

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 21

 .

disprove the various allegations of cruelty and demands of dowry. There can be no presumption
of dowry death by the Court against the accused u/s 113B.21

(¶19.) In case of Yashoda v. state of Madhya Pradesh22 court held that there must be a
proximate link between the act of cruelty along with the demand of dowry and death of the
victim. But in present case there was neither cruelty nor demand of dowry. Where there is no
evidence that the wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, the
husband or his relative would not be convicted on the charge of dowry death u/s 80, BNS.
Conviction of husband was set aside.23

(¶20.) Evidence was lacking to show that the appellants, mother in law inflicted cruelty in
connection with the demand of dowry soon before death. The two accused were acquitted of
offence u/s 80, BNS.24

(¶21.) According to the facts and provision stated it can be easily be construed that there was
lack of the evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for the
demand of dowry, soon before her death. Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble
court that the conviction of the accused should be set aside.

SECTION 85, BNS

(¶22.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in the context of given facts and
circumstances it is evident that there was a no substantial cruelty by the appellants.

(¶23.) In order to prove the offence u/s 85 the following ingredients must be fulfilled:

1. The women must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment &

3. Such cruelty of harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or
by the relative of her husband.25

(¶24.) In this present case only the first ingredient of § 85 of BNS has been fulfilled as the
deceased and Mr. Kabir Verma got married. The other two ingredients are not fulfilled, as the

21
Section 113B, Indian Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
22
(2004) 3 SCC 98
23
Jatashankarsah v. State Of Bihar 2013 Cr LJ 1992(Pat).
24
Mool Chand v. State Of Rajasthan 2012 Cr LJ (NOC) 228 (Raj.)(DB).
25
K.D GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1428 (2d Ed. 2013).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 22

 .

deceased had never been subjected to cruelty, neither mental nor physical by the husband or
his relatives. There has never been any demand for dowry from the deceased by the in-laws,
rather at the time of the marriage, the father of the deceased happily and wilfully gave ‘stridhan’
to his daughter, which does not come under the ambit of dowry. Mere unhappiness in the
matrimonial life, pushing the wife to commit suicide, will not attract § 85, BNS26.

(¶25.) Ingredients of 'cruelty' as contemplated u/s 85, BNS are of much higher and sterner
degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of
dissolution of marriage i.e. Divorce. 27 The High Court of Bombay has also taken the same
view in the case of Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v. State Of Maharashtra 28observing that every
kind of harassment or cruelty would not attract § 85. It must be established that the beating and
harassment to fulfil the illegal demands of the husband or her in-laws, forced the wife to
commit suicide.

(¶26.) In the instant case, it is evident from the facts that the comments passed by the mother
in-law were not at all with an intention to force the deceased to commit suicide. The Supreme
Court has also taken a similar view in the case of State Of Maharashtra v. Ashok Chotelal
Shukla29, observing that the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed acts of
harassment or cruelty as contemplated by § 85, and such harassment or cruelty must be the
cause forcing the wife to commit suicide. What can be deduced from this authority is that a
solitary incident cannot be interpreted to be the sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment
attracting § 85, BNS. In the above stated case, incessant, persistent and sufficiently
grave cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation that she is left with
no other option but to commit suicide, was absent. Cruelty or harassment must be unabated,
continuous or recurring & unbearable, one or two incidents casually taking place, May
therefore, attract another penal provision of Bharatiy Nyay Samhita, but will not attract § 85,
BNS. What is further necessary may be elucidated.30

(¶27.) There may be innumerable instances where an emotional lady may commit suicide, the
moment a word is uttered in anger or in haste. But cruelty contemplates the conduct of the in-
laws who intentionally cause harassment to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause injury

26
Thangappandian v. State By Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Mettur, (1998) Cr LJ 993 (Mad).
27
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand And Ors, 2003 Cr. LJ 2759.
28
1990 Cr.L.J. 407
29
(1997) 11 SCC 26
30
Indrasing M. Raol v. State Of Gujarat, (2000) DMC 239.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 23

 .

to her life, limb, etc. In the absence of any such circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend
that such conduct of the in-laws amounts to cruelty as defined u/s 85, BNS.31

(¶28.) It may be considered cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act as held by the Supreme
Court in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi32. The Apex Court observed that cruelty
u/s 85, BNS is distinct from the cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act which entitles the wife
to get a decree for dissolution of marriage.33 In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration)34,
the Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context of the provisions
of § 85, BNS, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave
nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶29.) Also, "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided
in § 85, BNS and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to
another. In the present case, it is not at all evident from the facts that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging
the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of §
85, BNS.35 The standards adopted under Clause (a) of Explanation to § 85, BNS as to what
conduct is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide cannot obviously be the standards of a
reasonably prudent person. The instinct to survive is so primary and basic in life that no conduct
can be reckoned as likely to drive an ordinarily prudent person to commit suicide. For an
ordinarily prudent human being, it is possible to reasonably assume that he is not likely to
commit suicide, whatever is the adversity. He would battle to get over and surmount the
adversity. No conduct can hence be objectively calibrated as conduct likely to drive an
ordinarily prudent woman to commit suicide.

(¶30.) The Legislature, it appears to me, had alertly and consciously used the expression "the
woman" and not "a woman" or "a reasonably prudent woman". Expression "the woman" used
in Clause (a) of the explanation must certainly suggest that the standards of the woman in
question have to be adopted while considering whether the conduct impugned was likely to

31
Smt. Sumangala v. Laxminarayan Anant Hegde And Anr., 2003 Cr LJ 1418
32
1988 AIR 121
33
Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (Nct Of Delhi), 2002 DLT 147.
34
AIR 2000 SC 3559
35
Manju Ram Kalita v. State Of Assam On 29 May, 2009

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 24

 .

drive the staid woman to commit suicide.36 The conduct of in-laws in the present case cannot
be said as the conduct likely to drive an ordinarily prudent woman to commit suicide.

(¶31.) It is only wilful conduct, with intention to cause physical torture or mental agony to a
woman in married life would amount to cruelty to hold the person responsible guilty of an
offence.37 To establish the offence u/s 85, BNS the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty as defined in clauses
(a) and (b) of the explanation to § 85, BNS.38 Where no specific particulars regarding time,
place and manner of any beating, cruelty or harassment of the deceased for demand for dowry
were given, the accused were acquitted of the charge u/s 85.39

(¶32.) In the present case there is no evidence to show that the deceased has been subjected to
cruelty and harassment prior to her death, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
The parents of the deceased did not lodge any police complaint about the alleged demand and
torture for the same but filed the complaint only after the death of their daughter. Simply
because the accused husband and relatives in past used to quarrel, by itself is not sufficient to
attract the provisions of section 85, BNS.40 In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yog Raj41,
even if the accused has demanded Rs 15000 from his wife to be brought from her parents, it
will not bring the case within the ambit of § 85, BNS, in the absence of evidence that she was
being treated with cruelty on account of such demand.

(¶33.) Even mere harassment or mere demand for dowry for property etc. is not cruelty. It is
only when the harassment is shown to have been caused for coercing a woman to meet demand
that it amounts to cruelty which has been made punishable under the section42.

(¶34.) It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that one or two instances of demand
are not sufficient for proving the offence of cruelty. In order to prove said offence it has to be
established that there was consistent harassment and ill treatment over a considerable time so

36
Murali V. State Of Kerala, 2006 DMC 589
37
Ram Vishnu Gupta And 2 Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 DMC 489; See Also Pyarelal v. State of
Haryana, (1997) 2 SCC 552; Kanchi Ramachandra v. State of A.P., 1995 (Supp.) 4 SCC119; Viralu v. State of
A.P., 1998 Vol.3 Crimes 549.
38
IS Bind v. State of Gujarat 2013 (125) AIC 102, P. 103.
39
Jalam v. State of MP 2014 Cr LJ 360 (MP); See Also Satya Narayan And Anr v. State 2003 Cr LJ 1228 (Bom)
(DB); Sunkara Suri Babu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Cr LJ 1480 (AP).
40
Ravan Balu Indalkar v. State Of Maharahtra, 2012 Bomcr (Cri) 106.
41
1997 Cr LJ 2033 (HP) (DB).
42
Lokesh Kaushik &Ors. v. State, SC On 28th April, 2009.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 25

 .

that it amounts to cruelty within the meaning of explanation u/s 8543. In the present case there
is no such evidence and the case was registered only after the death of Anjali. There is neither
any specificity in the allegations levelled against the appellants nor are they in equation with
the point of time.

(¶35.) There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon
before her death. It is submitted that the requirement of proof soon before her death is very
essential in proving the offence of dowry death. In the case of Kunhiaabdulla v. State of
Kerala44 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there must be existence of approximate
and live link between a fact of cruelty based on the dowry demand and concerned death. If
alleged incident of cruelty is remote enough and has become stale enough not to disturb mental
equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.45

(¶36.) In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kalidindi Sahadevudu46, it was held that mere
commenting that does not amount to subjecting the deceased to cruelty within the meaning of
§ 85, BNS. This shows that there was no cruelty from the side of Verma’s family.

(¶37.) In the recent judgment of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar47 it has been held that a general
tendency of roping all the relations has developed. Court also held that there is misuse of the
provisions of § 85, BNS and so there is a need to circumspect and arrest in such cases should
not be made in routine matter. In the present case no specific overt acts are attributed to the
husband, father-in-law or the mother-in-law and therefore their conviction by the Hon’ble High
Court is not sustainable and is required to be set aside. Also, in the case Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab48, it was observed that the in-laws of the deceased woman could not be roped in, just
because they were close relatives. The overt-acts which are attributed to them would require to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(¶38.) It is humbly submitted that the provisions of § 85 of BNS are not a law for taking
revenge, seeking recovery of dowry or for forcing a divorce, but a penal provision to punish
the wrongdoers. There was no allegation of any kind of physical torture. The evidence with
regard to cruelty was absolutely sketchy and not convincing.49 This section was intended for

43
Section 498A, Indian Penal Code.
44
AIR 2004 SC 1731.
45
Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785.
46
2012 Cr LJ 2302 (AP).
47
(2013) 4 SCC 690.
48
2000 CR LJ 2993.
49
Ghusabhai Risangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2015 SC 2670, 2015 Cr LJ 3613.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 26

 .

the protection of married women from unscrupulous husbands but is clearly misused by a few
women; again this is strictly condemned in Saritha v. R. Ramachandran.50

(¶39.) In case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab51, the apex court observed as: “For the fault of
the husband the in-laws or other relatives cannot in all cases be held to be involved. The acts
attributed to such persons have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they cannot be held
responsible by mere conjectures and implications. The tendency to rope in relatives of the
husband as accused has to be curbed”.

(¶40.) It is humbly submitted before the Honourable SC of India that the accused are not guilty
of cruelty as mere asking for property does not make it dowry demand and taunting for
ornaments not covered under cruelty as discussed u/s 85 of BNS. The deceased has never
lodged any complaint against the accused in the past years which shows that she was very
happy in her in-laws house and never faced any cruel treatment.

SECTION 4, DPA

(¶41.) It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the context of
the given facts and circumstances it is evident that there was no substantial demand of dowry
from the in-laws of deceased. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 gives Definition of
"dowry".

(¶42.) In this Act, "dowry" 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 parents of either party to a marriage or by a other person, to either party
to the marriage or to any other person;

At or before or after the marriage us consideration for the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.52

(¶43.) There was no such demand from in-laws of the deceased as they didn’t demand a single
penny from Anjali’s parents for they had given their daughter some cash, jewelry and land in

50
(2003) DMC 37.
51
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2000 CriLJ 2993.
52
Section 2, The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 27

 .

form of stridhan and they had given it without any force. There is a lot of difference between
dowry and stridhan. § 2, DPA, 1961, specifically says ‘’given or agreed to be given’’. In the
present case both parties did not give or agreed to give any property or valuable security in
consideration for marriage.

(¶44.) The term “Stridhana” literally means the “woman’s property”. According to the
Smritika, the Stridhana constituted those properties which she received by way of gifts from
her relatives, which included mostly movable property such as ornaments, jewellery, dresses.
Sometimes even land or property or even houses were given as gifts. The purpose behind
deeming properties as “Stridhana” was to ensure that "The woman" had full right over its
disposal or alienation. On her death, all types of Stridhana, devolved upon her heirs. But it had
been misused and falsely said to the police that there was dowry demand by her in laws. In
case of Nunna Venkateswarlu Alias v. The State of Andhra Pradesh53 court ruled that demand
of Stridhana made is also not dowry as defined u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(¶45.) In the case of Kailash Vati v. Ayodhya Prakash,54 Chief Justice Sandhawalia, while
recognizing the distinction between stridhana and dowry, used both the words interchangeably
as if one meant the other .He opined as follows:

“The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 does not bar traditional giving of presents at or
about the time of wedding. Thus such presents or dowry given by the parents is
therefore not at all within the definition of the statute”.

(¶46.) He further went on to state that:

“Law as it stands today visualizes a complete and full ownership of her individual property
by a Hindu wife and in this context the factum of marriage is of little or no relevance and
she can own and possess property in the same manner as a Hindu male Once it is held that a
Hindu wife can own property in her own right , then it is purely a question of fact whether
the dowry or traditional presents given to her, were to be individually owned by her or had
been gifted to the husband alone. Once it is found that as a fact that these articles of dowry
were so given to her individually and in her own right, then I am unable to see how the mere
factum of marriage would alter any such property right and divest her of ownership either
totally or partially”.

53
1996Cr LJ 108
54
(1977)79 P.L.R. 216(F.B.)

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 28

 .

(¶47.) A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some
urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally
understood.55 The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not; therefore, show that any
demand for "dowry" as defined in § 2, DPA, 1961 was made by the appellants as what was
asked for was some land for expanding their business.

(¶48.) In Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab56, dowry and stridhan has been distinguished and
held that concept of dowry has defined under Section 257 is wider that the concept of stridhan,
while dowry signifies presents given in connection with marriage to the bridal couple as well
as other, stridhan is confined to the property given to or meant for the bride.

(¶49.) With regard to the allegation of demand land, no evidence has been presented by the
prosecution to substantiate the same58. Any demand of any property or valuable security after
the performance of marriage which demand had not been made at the time of settlement of
marriage would not constitute dowry.59

(¶50.) In a case it was held that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 does not, in any way, bar the
giving of presents at or about the time of wedding, which may be willing and affectionate gifts
by parents and close relations of the bride to her.60

(¶51.) Also, Mayne in his book ‘Hindu Law And Usage’ said that: “The whole body of such a
family, consisting of males and female some of the members of which are coparceners, that is,
persons who on partition would be entitled to demand a share while others are only entitled to
maintenance.”61

(¶52.) Hindu undivided family’s meaning is given by Sir Dinshah Mulla in his book Principles
of Hindu Law in these words;

“A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor,
and includes their wives and unmarried daughters.”62

55
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 2839.
56
Hakim Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 Ch Cr C (HC) 484 (P&H)
57
Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
58
Factsheet, ¶7
59
Harban Singh v. Gurcharan Kaur, 1990 Cr LJ 1591; See also, Sankar Prasad Shaw v. State of West Bengal,
1991 Cr LJ 639 , Inder Sain v. The State (del), 1981 Cr LJ 1116, Balasaheb Annappa Whagmare v. State of
Maharashtra , (1998) 1 DMC 249.
60
Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab , AIR 1982 P&H 372 (FB)
61
MAYNE, HINDU LAW AND USAGE 304-305 (10 ed. 1938)
62
SIR DINSHAH MULLA, PRINCIPLES OF HINDU LAW 230 (7th ed.).

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 29

 .

(¶53.) This shows wife is the integral part of family. So while being the part of the family the
in-laws just asked for some help from the deceased and she denied so ‘’just asking’’ cannot
amounts to dowry. As the court, in case of Appasaheb and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra63 that
a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent
domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the
said word is normally understood. This Court held that being a penal provision Section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will have to be construed strictly.

(¶54.) In the present case, the appellants never made any unlawful demand from Anjali or her
relatives. They merely asked for help for expanding the family business, which Anjali being
the family member was morally bound to do. Moreover, they did not make any demand at the
time of the marriage. Had there been any wrongful intentions, the appellants would have made
a demand while the marriage was taking place Even definition of dowry in § 2 of DPA, 1961
makes it clear that dowry has to be in connection with the marriage and where there is no
connection between the demand and marriage, the same will not fall within the definition of
dowry. Hence, demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be
sustained.

SECTION 3(5), BNS

(¶55.) When multiple individuals act together to achieve a shared goal, each is held accountable
for the actions of the group, regardless of their personal involvement.

Lack of Shared Intent: There is no evidence to suggest that all parties involved had a common
intention to commit a crime.

Lack of Coordination: There is no indication of a planned or organized effort among the

individuals involved. Their actions appear to be largely independent and reactive.

Absence of Criminal Intent: The facts do not support the claim that any of the individuals
involved had a malicious intent to harm Anjali. Their actions were primarily motivated by
personal conflicts and disagreements.

SECTION 61(2), BNS

63
AIR 2007 SC 763

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 30

 .

(¶55.) Individuals involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit a serious offense, punishable

by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment of two years or more, shall be Punished
in the same manner as if they had directly aided or abetted the crime, unless otherwise specified.

Lack of Criminal Conspiracy:

No Evidence of Agreement: There is no evidence of a specific agreement or plan among Kabir,

his family, and Anjali to commit a crime.

Family Disputes: The conflicts depicted in the facts are primarily family disputes, not evidence
of a criminal conspiracy

Insufficient Evidence:

No Direct Evidence: The prosecution would need to provide concrete evidence of a criminal
conspiracy, such as recorded conversations, meetings, or written documents.

Circumstantial Evidence: Relying solely on circumstantial evidence to prove a conspiracy

would be difficult, as it would require a strong chain of events pointing to a shared criminal
intent.

Scope of the Crime:

No Evidence of a Serious Crime: The facts do not suggest that Kabir or his family were
conspiring to commit a serious crime punishable by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous
imprisonment of two years or more.

Reasonable Doubt:

Lack of Conclusive Evidence: There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that Kabir or his family were involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Alternative Explanations: The facts suggest that the conflicts between Anjali and Kabir's family
were primarily due to personal and family issues, rather than a criminal conspiracy.

SECTION 108, BNS

(¶55.) Individuals who assist or encourage another person to commit suicide shall be punished
with imprisonment of up to ten years and a fine.

Lack of Direct Abetment:

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 31

 .

No Encouragement or Assistance: There is no evidence that Kabir or his family directly

encouraged or aided Anjali in committing suicide.

No Direct Communication: There is no indication of direct contact between Anjali and Kabir
or his family immediately before her death.

Absence of Intent:

No Motive to Harm: There is no reason to believe that Kabir or his family intended to harm
Anjali or cause her to commit suicide.

Focus on Property Dispute: The primary conflict between Anjali and Kabir's family seems to
be related to property, not a desire to harm her.

Indirect Influence:

Normal Family Conflicts: The conflicts described in the facts are common family disputes and
do not necessarily constitute abetment of suicide.

Personal Choice: Suicide is a personal decision, and the actions or words of others may only
indirectly influence it.

Reasonable Doubt:

Lack of Conclusive Evidence: The prosecution would need to provide strong evidence that
Kabir or his family directly caused or influenced Anjali's suicide.

Alternative Explanations: The facts suggest that Anjali's suicide may have been due to work-
related stress or personal issues, rather than any actions by Kabir or his family.

II. WEATHER THE WORK LOAD AND JOB STRESS WERE THE REAONS FOR ANJALI’S
SUICIDE?.

Excessive Workload and Deadlines: Anjali's substantial backlog of work, coupled with
numerous impending deadlines, created a highly pressurized environment. The increased
workload, especially after her week-long absence, likely intensified her stress levels. The
constant pressure to meet deadlines and deliver high-quality work would have been a
significant source of anxiety.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 32

 .

Long Commute: The daily three-hour train commute to work added a considerable amount of
stress and fatigue to Anjali's life. The long journey, particularly in crowded conditions, would
have been physically and mentally draining. This daily commute would have made it difficult
to maintain a healthy work-life balance, as Anjali would have had limited time for rest,
relaxation, and personal activities.

Late Punching and Warnings: Anjali's repeated tardiness and the subsequent warnings from
the HR department would have likely contributed to feelings of anxiety and job insecurity. The
fear of disciplinary action or job loss could have created a constant state of stress and worry.
Additionally, the warnings may have made Anjali feel undervalued and unsupported by her
employer.

Missed Deadlines and Client Loss: The loss of clients due to missed deadlines would have
created significant pressure and increased Anjali's sense of job insecurity. The financial
implications of losing clients, coupled with the fear of disciplinary action, could have amplified
her stress levels. The pressure to perform well and avoid further client losses would have been
a constant source of anxiety.

Superior's Reprimand: The reprimand from Anjali's superior and the threat of termination
would have likely exacerbated her anxiety and stress levels. The fear of losing her job, coupled
with the negative impact of the reprimand on her self-esteem, could have created a toxic work
environment. The reprimand may have also made Anjali feel undervalued and unsupported by
her employer.

Lack of Support: The absence of significant support or understanding from Anjali's colleagues
or superiors would have likely contributed to her feelings of isolation and stress. The lack of
emotional support and encouragement could have made Anjali feel overwhelmed and alone in
dealing with her work-related challenges. The feeling of being unsupported by her colleagues
and employer would have made it difficult for Anjali to cope with the stress and pressures of
her job.

Sensitivity to Stress: Anjali's sensitive nature, as mentioned in the fact sheet, may have made
her more susceptible to the negative effects of work-related stress. Individuals who are
sensitive to stress may be more likely to experience anxiety, depression, and other mental
health issues in response to challenging situations.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 33

 .

These factors, combined with the demanding nature of Anjali's job and the lack of adequate
support, likely played a significant role in Anjali's mental health struggles and ultimately led
to her tragic decision.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 34

 .

-PRAYER-

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honourable Court, that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The accused must be acquitted from all the charges.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the
Best Interests of Justice, Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)
-COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANTS-

(______________)

s/d

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- PAGE 35