









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
it is a moot memorial it is a moot memorial in the issue of dowry death supporting respondent side which
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 16
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
TH
i
_ _ IN THE MATTER OF ANIKITA & ANEESH......................................................................................................Appellant v. STATE OF PALMGROVE ………………………………………………………...Respondent _ _ MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
ii
Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove (^1)
A.I.R. All India Reporter Art. Article Edn. Edition Hon’ble Honorable H.C High Court IPC Indian Penal Code J. Justice Jour. Journal Ltd. Limited MPC Mangalore Penal Code Ors Others p. Page pp. Pages Sec Section SCC Supreme Court Cases U.O.I. Union of India v. Versus
Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove (^3) MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Indian penal code Constitution of India
The counsels representing the appellant have endorsed their pleadings before the Hon’ble High Court of Palmgrove under Article 277 of Mangalore Constitution which the Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction. The present memorandum sets forth facts, contentions, and arguments.
Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 11 called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. In order to attract application of section 304-B of MPC, the essential ingredients are as follows: - i. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance. ii. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. iii. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. iv. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. v. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman, soon before her death.^3 All these ingredients are hereby fulfilled in the present case, the deceased was exposed to harassment and asked for the sum for 20 lakhs. She was tortured verbally and physically at her in-law’s house. She was harassed mentally as well. It was observed in Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand,^4 that the expression soon before death occurring in section 304-B MPC is an elastic term. It can refer to a period either immediately before death of deceased or within a few days or few weeks before death. What is relevant is there should be a perceptible nexus between death of deceased and dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on the woman concerned. Anjali was set on fire by her husband and mother-in- law on 8 February 2021 that was also witnessed by neighbors in which she was scummed to 90% of burn injuries and before that also she was continuously be beaten up by her husband and mentally tortured by her mother-in-law by forcing her to bring money from her parents’ home. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana^5 the deceased the wife of appellant died in burn injuries within seven years of marriage. The wife committed suicide because of mental cruelty and maltreatment at the hands of her husband on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The supreme court held the appellant liable for causing dowry death under section 304Band section 498A as well as for abetting suicide under section 306, MPC as because of his treatment the wife had committed suicide. Wherein, the present case as well the wife was exposed to cruelty which led her to try commit suicide, but she (^3) Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (^4) 2007 III Cri. L.J. 3262 (S.C) (^5) AIR 1998 SC 958
Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 11 was saved by her sister-in-law. All the demands from the deceased in-law’s and insults affected her in such way that she took the drastic step. She got married to Aneesh on 15 January 2020 and was set on fire on 8 February 2021 which caused her death that was under a year of her marriage. The deceased gave her dying statement 2 hours before her death which is valid on basing on evidence of the dying declaration which is admissible under section 32 of the evidence act.^6
Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 12
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that: