IPC moot memorial in the case of dowry death, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download IPC moot memorial in the case of dowry death and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity!

REVA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

MOOT MEMORIAL FOR I- II

SUBMITTED BY: PRACHI GARG

SRN: R19BL

CLASS: BBA LLB

TH

SEM

SEC-B

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. MEERA B LATHA

i

MOOT PROPOSITION IA- II

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PALMGROVE

_ _ 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)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 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

STATUTES REFFERED

 Indian penal code  Constitution of India

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is maintainable or not.
2. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC.
3. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC.
4. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is maintainable or not. It is submitted before this hon’ble high court that the appeal filed by the appellants Ankita and Aneesh is not maintainable. It is humbly submitted that this case lacks sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the appeal, thus in this case there is no need of a review as the judgement of the trial court is fair and just according to law.
2. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC. It is submitted before this hon’ble court that the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC as the facts given in the following case leads to fulfilling all the essentials of the section.
3. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the both the accused are liable for section 302 of MPC as they committed offence of murder through burning Anjali (deceased) alive resulting her to succumb 90% of burn injuries which led her to her death.
4. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the deceased was constantly mentally and verbally abused by both accused which led her to commit suicide. Hence, the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC.

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

3. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that section 302 of MPC states that whoever has committed murder shall be punished either with imprisonment for life or the death penalty along with fine. The primary point of consideration for the court, in the matters related to murder is intention and motive of the accused. Therefore, it is important that the motive and intention of the accused is proved in the case under this section. Essential ingredients which apply under section 302 include: - i. Intention: there should be an intention of causing death. ii. Causing death: the act must be done with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. iii. Bodily injury: there should be an intention to cause such bodily injury that is likely to cause death. All the ingredients are hereby fulfilled in the present case, as there was an intention to kill the deceased and they also had the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. They had the motive to take the dowry from the deceased and there was bodily injury cause the deceased. As mentioned, on 8 February 2021. She was running with her dupatta on fire and succumbed 90% of burns which led to her death. In case of “bride burning” or “dowry death’ on when murder is committed it can come under section 302 of MPC and sentenced him with extreme penalty of death.^7 In the case of Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh^8 , the accused poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on the fire. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302 of MPC. Similarly, the deceased was forced by her husband and mother-in-law for dowry and had physically and mentally harmed her. Lastly, they lit her on fire which led her to die. It is clear they had the motive of demanding dowry and had full knowledge that the act of setting he ablaze would eventually lead her to death. Knowing all the possible consequences they committed the said act. She also gave a dying declaration where she revealed that it was her mother-in-law that set her on fire and her husband was also present there as well as she was tortured before that also by her husband regularly. 4 Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. (^6) Sham Lal v. State of Haryana (^7) Shyam Lal v, State of Chhattisgarh (^8) AIR 1997 SC 3233, 1997 (1) ALC Cri. 889

Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 12

PRAYER AND CONCLUSION

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:

1. The appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is not maintainable.
2. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC.
3. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC.
4. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. And to pass any other order in favor of the respondent that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which are respectfully submitted, Place: S/d Date: Counsel for the Respondent