fINAL MEM0 Appelleant

Madhav Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya, 2nd Inter Class Moot Court Competition -
2016
Team code:
FIDES ET JUSTIA
2ND MOOT INTER CLAAS MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MADHAV VIDHI MAHAVIDHALAYA
IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AT NEW DELHI
S.L.P. NO.****/2016
CASE CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 302, 304B, 498A

READ WITH SECTION 34.
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & VIKRAM GUPTA................................................PETITIONERS
v.
DINESH GOYAL, SURESH GOYAL, SHARDA

GOYAL...........................................RESPONDENTS
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1
2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Table of Cases ........
Books and Articles
Statute
Lexicons
Website
Statement of Jurisdiction ..
Statement of Facts ...
Question Presented ..
Summary of Arguments ..
Arguments Advanced .
.
1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN SUPREME COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ?
2. Whether the act of the accused falls under the purview of Section
304B read with Sections 498A,34 and 302 of the IPC ?
3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE LAID BY THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN

ITS CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Prayer ..

2
2016
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Paragraph
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
AO Assessing Officer
Art. Article
CIT Commissioner of Income Tax
Cr.LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cr.PC Code of Criminal Procedure
FD Fixed Deposit
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
i.e. That is
IEA Indian Evidence Act
IPC Indian Penal Code
ITR Income Tax Return
Mad Madras
Or Orissa
PMR Post Mortem Report
PS Police Station
SC Supreme Court Cases
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Record
SLP Special Leave Petition
UOI Union of India
UP Uttar Pradesh

3
2016
v. Versus
INDEX OF AUTHORITES
CONSTITUTION
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
ACTS & STATUTES
1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973
2. THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.
3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872
4. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
5. THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961
6. THE PROTECTION OF WOMAN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005

4
2016
TABLE OF CASES
1. Kunhayanned v. state of Orissa. AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593(2000) 6 SCC 359s
2. Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
3. Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
4. Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC)
5. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC)
6. Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314
7. Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam
8. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406
9. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169
10. State of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer, 1958 Cr.LJ 232
11. Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 26
12. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472
13. State of Maharashtra v. MH George, AIR 1965 SC 722
14. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840
15. M/s Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohammad Ibrahim, AIR 1985 SC 207
16. Subedar v. State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125
17. Akula Ravinder v. State of AP, AIR 1991 SC 1142
18. Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand, 2002 Cr. LJ 3973( Jhar)
19. Kashmir Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1039
20. Rajesh Pandey v. State of UP, (2009) 5 SCC 132
21. Vidhya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 476
22. Yashoda v. State of MP, AIR 2005 SC 1411
23. Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1567
24. Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2012 SC 2866
25. Butan Sao v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) BLJR 1400
26. Sarju Modi v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cr.LJ 631 Jhar.
27. Alamgir Sani v. State of Assam
28. Rajbir v. State of Haryana
29. Nathu v. State of UP
30. P.B. Biksdhapath v. State of AP, 1992 Cr.LJ 1186
31. Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of UP
32. Shanti Behal v. State (Delhi Admin)
33. Hardeep Singh v. State, 1996 Cr.LJ 2733 ( P&H)
34. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
35. Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2461
36. State v. Javed Ansari, Delhi HC on 14 February, 2012
37. Mahender vs State, Delhi HC on 1 November, 2013

5
2016
38. Satbir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, SC on 14th Sept.2005
39. Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 182
40. Kansa Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR1987 SC 1507 (Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, IPC, 25th Ed.at Pg.
89)
41. Darshan Singh v State of Punjab, 1955 SCC (Cri) 702 See Also State v. Ramesh, on 28
February, 2015
42. State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
43. Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
44. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
45. Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj)
46. Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380
47. Badri v. State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189
48. Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373
49. State of Maharashtra v. Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
50. Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal
482
51. State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
52. State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
53. Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175S
54. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)
55. Raja Ram v. State Cri. Appeal No. 211 of 2013
56. State of HP v. Rajiv Jassi
57. State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh
58. Rajammal v. State of T.N.
59. Chhotanney & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 18 February, 2009
60. Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State Of U.P. 2001 CriLJ 1384
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, (21st Ed., Central Law Agency, 2016 )
2. Dr. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (8 th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2010).

6
2016
3. Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy, The Essentials of Forensic Medicine& Toxicology (33 rd Ed., J.P.
Publications, 2010)
4. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4 th Ed., Universal Law Publication,2015)
5. J.P. Modis , A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, (25 th Ed., Lexis Nexis ,
2016)
6. Justice UL Bhatt, Lectures on Indian Evidence Act,(Universal LawPublication,2015)
7. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, (6 th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)
8. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd.,2016) VII Ed.
9. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 7th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)

10. N.K. Acharya, Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act,( 6 th Ed. Asia Law
House,2013)
11. P.K. Majumdar & R.P. Kataria, Law Relating to Dowry Prohibition Cruelty & Harassment
(3rd Ed. ,Orient Publication,2015)
12. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33 rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
13. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, Law of Evidence (25 th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2013)
14. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (20 th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
15. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed., Eastern Book Company, 2011)
16. 19. SC Sarkar, The Indian Penal Code,1860 (3 rd Ed., Dwivedi Law Agency 2014 )
17. V.N. Shukla's, Constitution of India, (12 th Ed., Eastern Book Company, India 2013
DICTIONARIES REFERRED
1. Garner, Blacks Law Dictionary, (9th Ed. Thomus & 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 7 th August, 2016)

2. www.scconline.com ( Last visited on 8th August,2016 )
3. www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in ( Last visited on 2 nd August,2016)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
2016
The Appellant has approached the Honourable SC of India through SLP under article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The matter has been listed for hearing. Article 136 of Constitution of India read
here as under:
Special leave to appeal by the SC
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the SC may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, & sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
The memorandum for Appellant in the matters of State of Rajasthan & Vikram Gupta v. Dinesh
Goyal, Sharda Goyal & Suresh Goyal set forth the Facts, Contentions and Arguments present in
the case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

8
2016
1. Shri Dinesh Goyal & Shri Vikram Gupta were acquaintances. Suresh & Sharda, son &
daughter respectively of the above mentioned were pursuing MBA, in the same College.
Both fell in love. Suresh suggested to his father to talk to Vikram Gupta for his daughter.
Marriage was agreed upon. Dinesh Goyal demanded dowry of a substantial value & a sum of
1 Cr. for wedding celebrations. Vikram Gupta accepted it. The marriage took place on
17.07.2012. The said dowry was paid. An extravagant wedding reception was thrown by
Dinesh Goyal on 18th July, 2012 in the presence of approximately 5000 guests.
2. CIT conducted a survey under section 133A (5) & calculated an expenditure of 5 Cr. by
Gupta & . 7.5 Cr. by Goyal, whereon an assessment of books of account revealed expenses
each of 1 Cr. only. They stated that expenditure computed by the investigation is
incongruent to the tune of 2.5 Cr. Both filed their returns & declared their undisclosed
amount as per their statements & paid tax with interest. However, on scrutiny assessment
under section. 143(3) the Assessing Officer made an addition of the differential amount &
levied tax with interest notifying for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both the filed
appeals are pending.
3. Sharda did not receive proper humane treatment from her in-laws. Her mother-in-law
continuously demanded a Mercedes Car & a FD of 1 Cr. However a FD of 25 lac was
already presented by the name of Sharda. Her mother-in-law also demanded a baby boy,
within a year. Sharda gave birth to a baby girl; the Goyal family was not happy & Sharda was
sent back. Sharda in the meantime maintained a daily diary minutely. Around 20.05.2015
Suresh apologized for mistreatment & brought Sharda back home. But the relationship
between Sharda & her husband continued to be estranged due to dowry demands & drinking
habits of Suresh. Sharda was abused & beaten even in front of the servants.
4. Goyal family hatched a plan on 24.5.2015 & bought an organic phosphorus poison (NUVAN)
from PW-1. On 25.5.2015, Sharda was forcibly poisoned by her mother in law. & Suresh
helped her to do so. Sharda sustained injuries on her face, lips & neck. PW-2, a servant heard
the commotion & the conversation Give me salty water. I do not want to die. Servants, PW-
3 & PW- 4 smelt poisonous odour in the room. PW-4, requested Dinesh to take Sharda to the
hospital but Dinesh refused. In the meantime PW-5 & PW-6 (relatives of Sharda) arrived &
smelt the same odour in the room. On being asked, she raised her hand towards the accused
Dinesh Goyal & Shalini Goyal. PW-4 informed the police at about 4.30 a.m. On that, PW-7
noted the information in the daily diary. He found Sharda lying on the bed in an unconscious
state. PW-8 examined Sharda at about 6 a.m. & noted the patient semi-conscious with history
of consumption of poison. Reddish contusion over the lateral side of her right eye brow &
swollen lips were observed. He administered the initial treatment. Thereafter he referred
Sharda to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where she expired. Post mortem was
conducted by PW-9 in association with Dr V. K. Mishra. Cause of death was diagnosed to be

a case of Asphyxia due to the organic phosphorus poisoning. Various ante-mortem injuries
were found on the deceased.

9
2016
5. Vikram Gupta, PW-10 got to know about Sharda condition came to the hospital & lodged a
report at the PS mentioning that three accused have forcibly administered poison with
intention to kill his daughter for non-fulfilment of further demand of dowry. FIR was
registered under section 498A, 304B, 305/34 of the IPC. The diary which was exhibited &
evidence showed that Suresh purchased NUVAN, as a result charges under section 498A &
304B read with section 34 of IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961were framed
against the accused persons. All the three accused adjured the guilt & pleaded innocence.
Accused, Dinesh in his statement under section 313 CrPC did not deny the factum of the
deceased having died due to poison. Three DW were examined, who stated that Sharda Goyal
was happy in Goyal House and their relations were cordial and she was treated as a daughter.
Finding of the trial Court: The trial court acquitted the mother-in-law & Suresh Sh. Suresh Goyal.
However, convicted the father-in-law for commission of offence under section 302 IPC and awarded
imprisonment for 7 years with no fine.
Finding of the Rajasthan HC: State as well as Vikram Gupta filed appeal against accused. Dinesh
Goyal also filed an appeal against conviction. The HC acquitted the respondent Dinesh Goyal on the
ground that circumstantial evidence is inadequate.
Appeal before the SC: The State as well as Shri Vikram Gupta filed appeal against all the three
accused setting aside conviction and non-levy of maximum imprisonment with fine as also awarding
exemplary cost all throughout.
ISSUES RAISED

10
2016

[1.1]THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONBLE APEX COURT
[1.2] THE HC HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY
[1.3] THAT THE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
2. Whether the act of the accused falls under the purview of Section 304B
read with Sections 498A,34 and 302 of the IPC ?
[2.1] Whether the accused are guilty of offence charged under Sec. 304B IPC or not ?
[2.2] Whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty under Sec. 498A of IPC ?
[2.3] Whether the act committed by the accused fulfill the bare ingredients defined under
Sec. 302 of IPC ?
3.3.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED

2.3.2 MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED
3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE LAID BY THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN ITS

CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

11
2016

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the present appeal is maintainable
under article 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 of the Constitution of India is the
residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice. The chain
of circumstantial evidence is complete as to regarding the point of the guilt of accused and HC
acquitted the accused. Therefore, there has been a grave injustice. The jurisdiction of SC can
always be invoked when a question of law of general public importance arises. In the present
case, the impugned decision was mechanically passed without application of mind by the HC.
And hence, the judgment is incorrect. Article 136 uses the wording in any cause or matter. This
gives widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter, even if it involves question of
fact. Therefore, the present petition is maintainable in the SC.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honourable SC of India that the accused are guilty of
murder, dowry death and cruelty read with Section 34. In the present case, deceased did not
receive proper treatment from accused for not giving dowry which was demanded. Accused
planned murder of deceased by giving organo phosphorus (poison). And the statements given by
the all witnesses clearly prove that they have murdered the deceased. Even the accused refused to
take the deceased to the hospital & they did not inform the police. The dying declaration of
deceased proves that accused is guilty of alleged offences. Also the chain of circumstantial
evidence is clearly established and burden of proof lies on the accused to show as to how she
died. Therefore accused is guilty for the offence of 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC.


12
2016
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that present case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The general rule is that a party who desires to move the court must prove all
facts necessary for that purpose but it is subject to exception that he will not be required to prove
such facts as are necessarily within the knowledge of other party. In the present case the burden
of proving that accused had not committed the offence of cruelty, dowry death & murder lies on
the accused. Therefore the present case is beyond reasonable doubt.
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

13
2016

That, the Appellant humbly Approach before this Honble Supreme Court of India and filed a
petition under Article 1361 of the Constitution of India. That, the appeal under Art. 136 of
Constitution of India is totally maintainable. Article 136 runs as follows, Notwithstanding
anything in this chapter Article 136 (1) empowers that the supreme court may in its
discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment ,decree ,determination ,sentenced
or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.2
The power given to the Supreme Court by the Article 136 (1) is the nature of residuary
power. Deciding cases however established the supreme court will grant special leave to
appeal in exceptional cases-where grave and sustainable injustice has been done by, disregard
to forms of legal process or violation of the principle of Natural justice or otherwise.3
By virtue of section 375 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) this appeal is maintainable
that no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided no appeal shall lie form any judgment or
order of a criminal court except as provided for by this code or by any other law for the time
being in force.4[Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer any appeal against any
order passed by the court acquitting the accused or imposing inadequate compensation, and
1 (1) Not withstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination,
sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by order any law relating to the Armed Forces.
2 This however, is subject to Art.363;see,supra,sec.c(iii)(d)
3 Kunhayanned v. state of Orissa. AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593(2000) 6 SCC 359s

14
2016
such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of
conviction of such court].
It is limited in the sense that the Supreme Court has been constituted a court of criminal
appeal in exceptional cases where the demand of justice requires interference by the
highest court of the land. Under Article 136 one may appeal to the court only with its
permission or leave; But the power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider
and general. It vests in the Supreme Courts plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining
and hearing appeals by granting special leave, against :-
Any Judgement, decree, determination of order.

In any cause or matter;
Passed or made by any Court or Tribunal.
This SLP is maintainable as, firstly the Appellant has locus standi to approach the Honourable
SC [1.1], secondly the HC has not considered the entire gamut of evidence properly [1.2], thirdly
the grave injustice has been done[1.3].
[1.1]THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HONBLE APEX COURT
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the Honble Supreme Court in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is
couched in the widest phraseology.5 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. 6 It
is pertinent to note that the scope of Article 134 providing appeals to the SC in criminal matters
is limited whereas Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear in
any cause or matter. Therefore, criminal appeals may be brought to the SC under article 136
when these are not covered by Article 134.7
4 This however, is subject to Art.363;see,supra,sec.c(iii)(d)
5 Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
6 Ibid.

15
2016
In the present case the High Court erred in setting aside the order of conviction. The jurisdiction
conferred under article 136 on the Supreme Court is corrective one & not a restrictive one. A
duty is enjoined upon the Supreme Court to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in
the judgments, it is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated & failure by
the Supreme Court to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetuated.8
Article 136 is the residuary power of Supreme Court to do justice where the court is satisfied that
there is injustice.9 The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice
being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities.10
A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court11, while explaining the import of the said expression,
observed that: The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is
substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it
directly & substantially affects the rights of the parties & if so whether it is either an open
question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the
Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.
In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam12, the Supreme Court considered an important question

having a bearing on criminal appeals under article 136. Accused was acquitted of murder charge
on appeal by the High Court. The brother of the deceased got leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court on appraisal of evidence, the court set aside the order of acquittal & convicted accused.
Objection raised on behalf of accused relating to the maintainability of the SLP under article 136
7 Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271
8 Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law
of India (4th Ed. Vol. I 2010)
9 C.C.E v Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298, see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law
of India (4th Ed. Vol.II 2010).
10 Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC)
11 Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314
12 AIR 1979 SC 1284

16
2016
were rejected. Also in this case, Chinnappa Reddy J. laid emphasis on the plenary appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136 & observed:
It is now the well-established practice of this court to permit the invocation of the
power under article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances, as & when a question of law of
general importance arises. But, within the restriction imposed by itself, this court has undoubted
power to interfere even with findings of fact, making no distinction between judgments of
acquittal or conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted perversely or
otherwise improperly13
In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, 14 the Supreme Court has held that under
article 136 the Supreme Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order
passed by any court or tribunal in India. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special
residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court.
Even if we assume that the case doesnt involve substantial question of law, Supreme Court in
the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the present appeal. Article 136
uses the wording in any cause or matter.15 This gives widest power to this court to deal with
any cause or matter, even if it involves question of fact.
This case establishes the position that the powers of the Supreme Court in appeal under article
136 are not restricted by the appellate provisions contained in the Cr.PC or any other statute.
Hence, in the present case appellant has locus standi to approach the Honble Supreme Court.
In this very case, the evidence with respect to poison administration cannot be relied upon. The
entire HC judgment did not consider the evidence provided by the diary. Thus, there has been a
gross mistake on the part of the HC with respect to consideration of evidences.
13 Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam AIR 1979 SC 1284
14 (1991) 4 SCC 406
15 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169

17
2016
[1.2] THE HC HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY
It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the appreciation of evidence
was not proper. Firstly, the daily diary which formed a substantial part of what the deceased had
to face in her everyday life have not been considered. Secondly, chain of Circumstantial evidence
in the present case erringly point to the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, Dr. OP Chaudhary did not
say that deceased had consumed the poison herself to commit suicide. Also Dr. Piyush Kapila
could not rule out the possibility of the victim committing suicide by herself. Also the trial court
acquitted the mother-in-law and husband of deceased on unreasonable grounds. And there was
direct evidence regarding the cruelty but accused were not convicted by Trial court & HC.
The judgment of the HC was liable to be set aside when certain salient features of the case were
not properly appreciated or given due weight by the HC.16 In Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab17,
it was held that if there is no evidence to support the finding of a fact, or the conclusions of the
HC are manifestly perverse are based on surmises, conjectures & are unsupportable by evidence,
the SC may go behind the findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. The SC interfere with
concurrent findings are vitiated by errors of law, or the conclusions reached by the court below
are so patently opposed to well established principles as to amount to miscarriage of justice or
where the interest of justice so requires.18
16 State of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer, 1958 Cr.LJ 232
17 AIR 1965 SC 26
18 Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472

18
2016
It is also pertinent to note that HC erred in passing the impugned judgment in criminal appeal on
the ground that circumstances are not of conclusive nature. In the present case there are certain
material aspects which were lost sight by the Trial Court & HC but have been noted by the SC
that the Domestic Violence be deprecated. Therefore in the present case HC did not appreciate
evidence. Hence the present appeal is maintainable.
[1.3] THAT THE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that grave injustice has been done in
the present case. In this case all the circumstantial evidence is clearly establishing that the HC
did not use its faculty. There are no two views present in the present case to favor one.
It is also pertinent to note that SC does not interfere with the sentence passed by lower courts
unless there is an illegally in it, or is unjust in the facts & circumstances of the case, it is unduly
lenient, it involves any question of principle or where the HC does not exercise its discretion
judicial on the question of sentence.19 In the case at hand, the HC & Trial Court did not exercise
its discretion & acquitted the mother-in-law on the plea that she is a woman. Shri Suresh Goyal
was also acquitted being youth of 30 years.
Also the SC does not interfere with the findings of HC on acquittal unless such finding is clearly
unreasonable, or unsatisfactory or perverse, or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust or is vitiated
by some glaring infirmity in the appraisal of evidence or the HC completely misdirects itself in
reversing the order of conviction by the Trial Court or it results gross miscarriage of justice.20
It is also contended that in the present case SC has issued notice to the police regarding the
deprecation of the charge of domestic violence & maintainability of Appeal. If the appellant
19 State of Maharashtra v. MH George, AIR 1965 SC 722
20 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840

19
2016
proves that a concurrent decision of two or more courts or tribunal is manifestly unjust, it will be
the duty of SC to remedy the injustice. 21 Thus when the judgment under appeal has resulted in
grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or mistake in the reading of evidence or
by ignoring material evidence then it is not only empowered but is expected to interfere to
promote the cause of justice.22
The extent of injustice caused to the deceased demands the intervention of the Honourable Apex
Court. Hence, the present petition is maintainable.
That, the Appellant humbly Approach this Honble Supreme Court of India humble
submission before this Honble bench that the accused is guilty for committing the offence of
dowry death under Sec 304B read with section 302 and 34 and 498A, IPC.
[2.1] Whether the accused are guilty of offence charged under Sec. 304B IPC or
not ?
That, the Appellant Humbly submits before this Honble Bench that Sec. 304B describes as
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.23
21 M/s Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohammad Ibrahim, AIR 1985 SC 207
22 Subedar v. State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125

20
2016
To prove the guilt of the respondent, appellant has to prove following ingredients of an
offence:
1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances.24
2. Such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.25
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.26
In the present case, all the ingredients of dowry death have been fulfilled. The death of the
deceased happened in the abnormal circumstances. Also such death has occurred within the
seven year of her marriage. Also the deceased has been subjected to cruelty & harassment by her
husband & mother-in-law. And such cruelty was in connection of the demand of dowry of
Mercedes Benz and FD of 1 Crore. Hence the accused is guilty of the offence of Dowry death.
It is further contended that Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prohibits the demand
for giving property or valuable security which demands, is satisfied, would constitute an
offence under section 3 read with section 2 of the act. Also the minor variations could not affect
credibility of prosecution version.27
No hard & fast rule of a universal application laid down by prescribing time limit too soon
before death.28 Where the wife was persistently subjected to cruelty & harassment by the
husband & other in laws for gold ornaments and the last such torture was practiced fifteen days
23 Section 304B of IPC,1860
24 Akula Ravinder v. State of AP, AIR 1991 SC 1142
25 Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkhand, 2002 Cr. LJ 3973( Jhar)
26 Kashmir Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1039
27 Rajesh Pandey v. State of UP, (2009) 5 SCC 132
28 Vidhya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 476

21
2016
before the occurrence, the court said that the requirement of soon before was very well
justified.29
Where the wife was harassed by her husbands in-laws for dowry & that she died under abnormal
circumstances due to aluminum phosphide poisoning. There is sufficient evidence to hold the
appellants guilty of offences punishable under section 304 B of IPC & 498A of the IPC 30. Also
the conduct of the accused prior to & immediately after the occurrence clearly shows that they
were not innocent. SC upheld the conviction.31
Where death was proved to have been caused by poisoning & there was consistent evidence of
torture for demand of dowry, it was held that the fact that the accused husband killed his wife
stood proved & conviction was proper.32 Also the facts and circumstances proved the guilt of the
accused person even in the absence of any eye-witness.33
In the case at hand, the accused are being tried for the offence of dowry death as the deceased
was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relative for the demand of dowry. Such cruelty
ended up with the administration of organo phosphorous and ultimately the death of the
deceased. The court ruled out that presumption can also be drawn from drinking & beating habits
of the husband. In the case at hand, due to demand of dowry & excessive drinking of Suresh
Goyal started abusing & beating in the presence of servants.
In Alamgir Sani v. State of Assam34, the SC held that merely because the accused was acquitted
under section 302 IPC (Charge of murder) the presumption under s. 113 B as to dowry death did
not stand automatically rebutted.
29 Yashoda v. State of MP, AIR 2005 SC 1411
30 Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1567
31 Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2012 SC 2866
32 Butan Sao v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) BLJR 1400
33 Sarju Modi v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cr.LJ 631 Jhar.
34 AIR 2003 SC 2108

22
2016
In Rajbir v. State of Haryana,35 a two judge Bench of the SC directed all trial court to
ordinarily add section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so that death sentences can be imposed
in such heinous & barbaric crimes against woman. Also in Nathu v. State of UP,36 Allahabad
HC observed that, dowry death is worse than murder.
[2.2] Whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty under Sec. 498A of IPC ?
That, the Appellant humbly submits before this Honble bench that Sec. 498-A. Husband or
relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- 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 and shall also be liable to fine.
In the case at hand, relationship between deceased & her husband continued to be estranged
due to demand of dowry & excessive drinking of Suresh Goyal who started abusing &
beating in the presence of servants.37 It is pertinent to note that the Drinking of the husband
coupled with beating & demanding dowry have been taken to amount to cruelty within the
meaning of section 498A.38
Section 498-A, I.P.C, shows that whoever being the husband or 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 and shall be liable to fine. Clause (b) of the explanation to
that section shows that the harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or
35 AIR 2011 SC 568
36 Criminal Bail Application No. 12466 of 2002 Quoted of 202nd Law Commission Report
37 Moot Proposition, Para 9, Line 3rd
38 P.B. Biksdhapath v. State of AP, 1992 Cr.LJ 1186(AP) ( Quoted in Ratanlal & DhirajLal, The IPC,
Lexis Nexis, 34th Ed. Sec.498A)

23
2016
valuable security or is on account of the failure by her or any other person related to her to
meet such demand would amount to cruelty under Sec. 498-A.39
Also it is pertinent to note that SC held that cruelty for the purpose of offence need not be
physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty & harassment in a
given case.40
In the present case, PW 10 stated that all the three accused had forcibly administered poison
with intention to kill his daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Also the deceased
used to maintain a daily diary minutely which was exhibited to frame charges under section
498A substantiates the guilt.
In Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of UP,41 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 & continue till her death. Accused was
convicted under section 498 A & 304B IPC.
Similarly in Shanti Behal v. State (Delhi Admin.)42, in the case of bride burning, the
husband & the mother-in-law of the deceased were charged with harassment, cruelty and
maltreatment & demand of Dowry. The mother-in-law poured kerosene on her body and set
her on fire. The victim dying declaration was corroborated by medical & other evidences.
The Delhi HC upheld the sentence under section 302 & 498A.
In the case at hand, all the ingredients of the above mentioned crimes are complete & hence
all the accused are guilty of the offence charged under section 498A IPC & section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 IPC.
39 Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378.
40 Gananth Pattanaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2SCC 619
41 2011 Cr.LJ 445
42 1994 Cr.LJ 2043

24
2016
In a case where the accused was charged to have administered the insecticide into the mouth
of the victim as she could not bring the dowry from her parents, the trial court convicted
them under section 302, 34 & 498-A IPC.43
In the present case the accused tortured for dowry, maltreated the victim for long & then
there was a pre-arranged plan of committing the offence of murder. Also all the accused did
participate in the crime in some manner. Father-in-law purchased the poison organo
phosphorus mother-in-law administered the poison to the accused & husband controlled the
body of the deceased physically & forced her to drink. Therefore respondents are guilty for
the offence of murder, dowry death & cruelty for dowry death.
[2.3] Whether the act committed by the accused fulfill the bare ingredients defined
under Sec. 302 of IPC ?
That, the Appellant humbly submits before this apex court that the act committed by the
accuseds falls under Sec 302 which prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In
order to bring a successful conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to
Sec 300, IPC which elucidates the essentials of murder.
A person is guilty of murder if he intentionally causes the death of a person or causes such
bodily injury as he knows, is likely to cause death of that person or causes such bodily injury,
which in the ordinary course of nature results into death or commits an act so dangerous that
it must, in all probability cause death of that person 44. The Prosecution humbly contends that
both actus rea [2.3.1] and the mens rea [2.3.2] of the crime are established in the instant
matter.
43 Hardeep Singh v. State, 1996 Cr.LJ 2733 ( P&H)
44 Sec 300, IPC

25
2016
2.3.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED
Actus reus is any wrongful act45. Thus, in a case of murder, actus reus would be the physical
conduct of the accused that causes death of the victim. In the instant case, the actus reus is
established by way of witness statements [ A ], forensic report [ B ], dying declaration [ C ] &
conduct of accused [ D ].
A. Witness Statements
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the testimony of all the witnesses is
reliable and enforce the guilt of the accused. On 24.5.2015, Goyal family planned & Mr. Dinesh
Goyal purchased organo phosphorus sold under the trade name of NUVAN from Shri Sanjay
Kumar PW-1 a shopkeeper. On 25.5.2015, Smt. Sharda Goyal, forcibly administered poison to
the deceased to kill her. Her son also held the body of the deceased physically & forced her to
drink. Shri Surendra Kumar PW-2, a servant heard the shrieks & cries of the deceased. Two other
servants Shri Ved Prakash PW-3, & Shri Om Prakash PW-4, reached on the spot & smelt
poisonous odour in the room. The articles in the room were scattered. The deceased was lying on
the bed having bruises & contusions on her face. Water was splashed on the bed as well as on the
floor of the room. The clothes of the deceased were also drenched. Shri Om Prakash, PW-4,
requested Shri Dinesh Goyal & Suresh Goyal to take the deceased to the hospital immediately
but accused replied that there was no necessity. In the meantime Shri Anil Kumar PW-5, & Shri
Shiv Kumar PW-6, relatives of the deceased also arrived. They noticed the condition of the room
& also the precarious & deteriorating condition of the deceased. They also smelt poisonous
odour in the room. On being asked what had happened, she raised her hand towards the accused
Shri Dinesh Goyal & Mrs. Shalini Goyal. On next day, Dr. O. P. Choudhary, PW-8, examined the
45 Aiyar, P Ramanatha, The Law Lexicon, p. 49 (2nd Ed. 2006)

26
2016
deceased at about 6 a.m. & noted the patient was semi-conscious with history of consumption of
poisonous substance.
B. Forensic Report
The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of death is to be established
& is a matter of controversy.46 Moreover, it is not possible for the Appellant to explain each &
every injury suffered by the witnesses. 47 In the present case it was also noted that complete
examination of the body could not be done because patient was in serious condition.
Also the B.P. was not recordable & PW-8 Doctor O. P. Choudhary only administered the initial
treatment. He carried out Gastric Lavage first with saline solution & then with ordinary tap
water. Thereafter he referred the deceased at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur which was informed to the
police. She died at the Hospital. Therefore, saving the life of deceased was the priority for doctor.
However, for the sake of convenience, the Appellant feels obliged to assist this Honble Court in
understanding the intricacies of the PMR. In the present case Post mortem was conducted by Dr.
Piyush Kapila, PW-9 in association with Dr. V. K. Mishra, Assistant Professor Forensic
Medicine. The nature of the injuries & parts of the body on which sustained or received suggest
that this was an act caused by accused while overpowering her to administer forcible poison. No
other view can be drawn or taken if the injuries referred to above are analysed in the probable
human conduct at a given situation.
According to Stedman's Medical Dictionary48, "convulsion" means a violent spasm, which may
also be hysterical. Modi dealing with Pharmacological action of organo-phosphorus compounds
in his work has observed49: "The organo-phosphate compounds are absorbed from the skin,
respiratory & gastro-intestinal system. Its site of activity is considered to be at the myoneural
junctions & synopses of the ganglions. Chemically, it interferes with the activity of enzyme
acetyl cholinesterase in inhibiting its action on acetyl choline. Its action resembles that of
physistigmine & neostigmine.
46 Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
47 Ravindra Shantaram Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2461
48 Thomas Stedman, Stedman's Medical Dictionary, (28th Ed., Wolter Kluwer Health, 2005)
49 Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty Second Edition, in Chapter III of Section II at
pages 86

27
2016
Signs & Symptoms: Onset of systemic symptoms is most rapid following inhalation, & least
rapid following absorption from the skin. With massive ingestion or inhalation, symptoms may
begin within five minutes, or may be delayed, for half to one hour & are at a maximum in 2 to 8
hours. Signs & symptoms appear when the cholinesterase level drops to 30% of its normal
activity. The respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms are more marked depending on the route of
entry.50
These expert opinions clearly specify that the deceased was subjected to domestic violence &
murder has been committed by the accused. Also as to the cause of death it was opined that the
deceased had died due to asphyxia secondary to the organo phosphorus poison. Hence the
accused is guilty of the offence of murder.
C. Dying Declaration
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the dying declaration is reliable &
requires no corroboration for conviction. The Section 32(1) of IEA only requires that there must
be a statement made by a person about the cause of his death, for its admissibility. & it need not
disclose all surrounding circumstances.51And a mere omission, in a dying declaration, of the
motive of the accused to kill the deceased does not affect its veracity, insofar as it relates to the
cause of death.52
Word Dying Declaration means a statement written or verbal of relevant facts made by a
person, who is dead.53 It is the statement of a person who had died explaining the circumstances
of his death. This is based on the maxim nemo moriturus presumuntur mentri i.e. a man will
not meet his maker with lie on his mouth. Our Indian law recognizes this fact that a dying man
seldom lies. Or truth sits upon the lips of a dying man.54
Dying declaration recorded on the basis of nods and gestures is not only admissible but possesses
evidentiary value, the extent of which shall depend upon who recorded the statement, what is his
educational attainment, what gestures and nods were made, what were the questions asked
50 Dr. K.S. Narayan Reddy, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 1st Ed., Ch.35, at Pg. 539
51 State v. Javed Ansari, Delhi HC on 14 February, 2012
52 Mahender vs State, Delhi HC on 1 November, 2013
53 Section 32(1), of IEA, 1872
54 Satbir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, SC on 14th Sept.2005

28
2016
whether they are simple or complicated - and how effective or understandable the nods and
gestures were.55
In the present case when Shri Anil Kumar PW-5, and Shri Shiv Kumar PW-6, relatives of the
deceased arrived. They noticed the condition of the room and also the precarious & deteriorating
condition of the deceased. When they asked the accused what had happened, he reported that it
was his private life & they need not bother. And on being asked what had happened, she raised
her hand towards the accused present there - Shri Dinesh Goyal & Mrs. Shalini Goyal. It means
it was an oral dying declaration which clearly shows that crime has been committed by all the
accused.
D. Conduct of Accused56
A fact can be proved by conduct of a party & by surrounding circumstances. Statements

accompanying or explaining conduct are also relevant as part of the conduct itself. Previous
conduct of the accused can be inferred from the evidence given under section 498A and 304B.
Also it is important to note that the accused were present at place of occurrence, which can be
corroborated by the testimony of various witnesses. The conduct of being last seen with the
deceased is relevant.57 Where once it is established that the husband (accused) was with his wife
at the place of occurrence and when there is no explanation as to how he parted his company
with her then it lends assurance to the evidence of eye witness as to the manner of occurrence.58
55 Meesala Ramakrishan v. State of A.P., (1994) 4 SCC 182
56 Section 8, IEA, 1872
57 Kansa Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR1987 SC 1507 (Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, IPC, 25th Ed.at Pg. 89)
58 Darshan Singh v State of Punjab, 1955 SCC (Cri) 702 See Also State v. Ramesh, on 28 February,
2015

29
2016
2.3.2 MENS REA OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED
Mens rea is considered as guilty intention59, which is proved or inferred from the acts of the
accused60. It is submitted that the intention to kill is established [A] in light of clear-cut
motive of the accused [B]. Arguendo, absence of motive would not be a sufficient ground to
dismiss the case [C].
A. The Accused had intention to kill
59 Commissioner of Income Tax v Patranu Dass Raja Ram Beri, AIR 1982 PH 1, 4
60State of Maharashtra v Meyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722

30
2016
It is presumed that every sane person intends the result that his action normally produces and
if a person hits another on a vulnerable part of the body, and death occurs as a result, the
intention of the accused can be no other than to take the life of the victim and the offence
committed amounts to murder61. Moreover, the intention to kill is not required in every case,
mere knowledge that natural and probable consequences of an act would be death will suffice
for a conviction under s. 302 of IPC62.
The intention to kill can be inferred from the murder and nature of the injuries caused to the
victim63. Causing a serious injury on the vital parts of the deceased with any kind of weapon
or by physical actions is enough to conclude that the accused intended to cause death, and it
answers to section 300 and is murder64.Given that the post mortem reports presented by PW-9
Dr. Piyush Kapila and Dr. V.K. Mishra shows that the deceased was injured to various body
parts which occurred to her during the course when she was forcibly administered to the
poison by the accuseds; which clearly shows that the accused had intention to Kill the
Deceased
B. The Accused had motive to kill
Sec 8, Evidence Act stipulates that any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Thus, previous threats or altercations
between parties are admitted to show motive 65. It is further pertinent to note that if there is
motive in doing an act, then the adequacy of that motive is not in all cases necessary.
Heinous offences have been committed for very slight motive66.
61 (1951) 3 Pepsu LR 635
62 Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Cri LJ 602 (SC)
63 Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 1803
64 Md. Idrish v. State, 2004 Cr LJ 1724 (Raj); Md. Sharif And Anr. v. Rex, AIR 1950 All 380; Badri v.
State of U.P., AIR 19953 All 189; Dibia v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All 373, State of Maharashtra v.
Bhairu Sattu Berad, AIR 1956 Bom 609
65 Son Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1142, Chhotka v State of WB, AIR 1958 Cal 482

31
2016
It is also pertinent to note that section 34 is the rule of evidence. When a young wife was
burnt to death by her accused husband & the in-laws because they were unhappy over the
insufficient dowry, they were held liable to be convicted under section 302 read with section
34.74
That, the appellant humbly submits that it already established during the trial examination
that the accused Dinesh Goyal purchased the poison from the PW-1 Shri Sanjay Kumar, also
statements from PW-2 Shri Surendra Kumar , PW-3 Shri Ved Prakash and PW-4 Shri Om
Prakash; servents of the house proves that the accuseds were an active participant and
present during the period when whole incident was carried. PW 4 when requested the
accused Dinesh Goyal and Suresh Goyal to took the deceased to the hospital they directly
refused, same is proved from the statements provided by PW-5 and PW-6. All the actions
performed by the Accuseds clearly directs to one single direction that they had the clear
motive to kill the victim.
Two elements are required to fulfill the requirements of S. 34. One is that the person must be
present on the scene of occurrence & the second is that there must be a prior concert or a pre-
arranged plan.75 In the present case both requirements are fulfilled. On 25.05.2015 all the
accused people were present at the place of occurrence & there was a pre-arranged plan.
C. Arguendo, Absence of motive is irrelevant
That, the Appellant humbly submits to assume for the sake of argument that the accused had
no motive, it is humbly contended that absence of motive is no ground for dismissing the
case. Motive is immaterial so far as the offence is concerned, and need not be established 67 as
66 State v Dinakar Bandu (1969) 72 Bom LR 905
67 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 34th Ed. (2014)

32
2016
the mere existence of motive is by itself, not an incriminating circumstance and cannot take
the place of a proof68.
Therefore, absence of proof of motive, does not break the link in the chain of circumstances
connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case and is not
fatal as a matter of law 69 .When the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to prove
beyond any doubt to prove that it was the accused and no one else, who intentionally caused
the death of the accused then, motive of the crime need not be proved 70, as in the current
case.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused is guilty for the
offence of murder, given that the requisite mens rea is established from the facts of the case,
beyond a reasonable doubt.

68 State of Punjab v Sucha Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1471
69 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1175S
70 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Digvijay Singh, 1981 Cri. LJ 1278 (SC)

33
2016
It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that present case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The general rule is that a party who desires to move the court must prove all
facts necessary for that purpose71 but it is subject to exception that he will not be required to
prove such facts as are necessarily within the knowledge of other party.72 In the present case the
burden of proving that accused had not committed the offence of cruelty, dowry death & murder
lies on the accused. Failure to explain that the deceased was in unconscious position coupled
with other evidence is a grave circumstance which militates against such a person.73 There is
overwhelming evidence on record indicating that the behavior of the accused towards the
deceased was improper.
In State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh,74 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, it was held that the burden to
account for the circumstances of death was shifted to the person in whose care the woman met
her death. He alone must be in possession of the knowledge of those circumstances.
In Rajammal v. State of T.N.,75 in case of dowry death, the victim died due to manual
strangulation & the victims in-laws & husbands brother alone were present in the house at the
time of her death. Their subsequent conduct was consistent only with their guilt. It was held that
the only possible inference was that they participated in the crime & the burden to prove the
contrary lay on them since it was within their special knowledge.
71 Section 101 of IEA,1872
72 Section 106 IEA, 1872 See Also Raja Ram v. State Cri. Appeal No. 211 of 2013
73 State of HP v. Rajiv Jassi, MANU/0531/2016 (Decided on 6/5/2016 by SC)
74 1989 Cr.LJ (NOC) 13 (P&H) ( Quoted in The Law of Evidence, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,
25th Ed., Pg.536)
75 1993 Cr.LJ 3029 (Mad.)( Quoted in The Law of Evidence, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 25 th
Ed., Pg.87)

34
2016
A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt
based upon reason & common sense arising out of the evidence of the case. 76 In the above
mentioned facts it is clearly stated that the crime was committed by the accused & not by the any
other person. It is clearly establishing the chain of circumstantial evidence. There is no doubt in
this as to may have committed or has committed 77, the prosecution has established this by
legal, reliable & unimpeachable evidence for conviction to be sustained. Also in the present case
there is no two views are possible.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the charge under section
302,304B, 498A read with section 34 of the IPC has been made out due & all the accused must
be convicted.
76 Chhotanney & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 18 February, 2009
77 Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State Of U.P. 2001 CriLJ 1384

35
2016
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issue raised, fact presented, argument
advanced and authorities cited, the petitioner most humbly pray before
this Honble Court that it may kindly set aside the judgment of Honble High
Court and be pleased to adjudge and declare that :-
SLP is maintainable under arti cle 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
the Honble HC of Rajasthan did err in acquitting the accused.
Accused Dinesh Goyal be awarded imprisonment for life & his wife & son
for seven years rigorous imprisonment.
AND/OR
Pass any order that this Honble court may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good conscience. And for this, the appellant is duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Place: COUNSELS FOR THE
Date: APPELLANT.

36

fINAL MEM0 Appelleant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

fINAL MEM0 Appelleant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madhav Vidhi Mahavidhyalaya, 2nd Inter Class Moot Court Competition -

2ND MOOT INTER CLAAS MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MADHAV VIDHI MAHAVIDHALAYA

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CASE CONCERNING OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 302, 304B, 498A

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & VIKRAM GUPTA................................................PETITIONERS

DINESH GOYAL, SURESH GOYAL, SHARDA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE LAID BY THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

ACTS & STATUTES

1. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

2. THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

3. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

4. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

5. THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961

6. THE PROTECTION OF WOMAN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

9. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 7th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)

1. www.manupatrafast.in ( Last visited on 7 th August, 2016)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Special leave to appeal by the SC

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

conducted by PW-9 in association with Dr V. K. Mishra. Cause of death was diagnosed to be

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN SUPREME COURT IS

[1.3] THAT THE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

3.3.1 ACTUS REUS OF MURDER IS ESTABLISHED

3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE LAID BY THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN ITS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN SUPREME COURT IS

3. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE LAID BY THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN SUPREME COURT IS

2 This however, is subject to Art.363;see,supra,sec.c(iii)(d)

3 Kunhayanned v. state of Orissa. AIR 2000 SC 2587, 2593(2000) 6 SCC 359s

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Any Judgement, decree, determination of order.

4 This however, is subject to Art.363;see,supra,sec.c(iii)(d)

5 Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam12, the Supreme Court considered an important question

7 Sadhu Singh v. Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 271

12 AIR 1979 SC 1284

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

13 Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharatnam AIR 1979 SC 1284

14 (1991) 4 SCC 406

15 Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

16 State of Madras v. Vaidyanatha Iyer, 1958 Cr.LJ 232

18 Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

[1.3] THAT THE GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

20 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840