GLS LAW COLLEGE

Moot Preposition for Internal Evaluation

Semester III
Batch 2018-23

1. Ms Lalita Kumari, Hindu, Bania aged 26 years and Mr. Satish Nair
belonging to South India, aged 28 years were working in an IT firm named
“Hubs and Hitech” since 2008. As both were spending majority of their
time working in the office, closeness between them increased which
resulted into liking for each other. Both of them belong to different religion,
but that did not restrain them to get married, they decided to get married
and with the consent of both of their parents and family members. They got
married on 28 December 2010, under Special Marriage Act, and started
residing at Ahmedabad with Satish Family. Satish Family consist his
parents younger brother and younger sister.

2. After one year of their marriage i.e. in January 2012 they started their own
firm with the name of “Computer InfoTech”. Due to their busy schedule
and ego problems and with the increasing conflicts and misunderstanding
however after few years their relationship got strained and were regularly
quarrelling over frivolous issues. Satish had an anticipating that Lalita had
an extra Marital affair with Mr. Mitesh Sai one of their client. On the other
hand Lalita was not keeping well and was also taking anti depression pills.

3. On 13.3.2013 in the early morning around 6:15 am, mother in law of Lalita
saw Lalita lying burnt in the kitchen, and hence immediately called Satish
and his younger brother who was sleeping in their respective rooms..
Looking to the condition of Lalita, they called for medical emergency.
Satish father and Sister was not in town, they had went to Anand for two
days, for satish’s sister admission in engineering College. The ambulance
which came and the person who saw lalita,told that the body is fully burnt
and it’s a police case, and there after police was called by the family
members of Satish and had informed police that Lalita (herein after referred
to as deceased) had committed the suicide by burning herself in the kitchen.
Prosecution witness Arvind (brother of Deceased) received the information
on 13.3.2013 at around 9 AM from one of the neighbour that the deceased
has committed suicide and they should come to their house immediately.

4. Thereafter, the brother, sister in law and parents of deceased rushed at the
place of scene. The brother of the deceased lodged the FIR on 15.3.2013,
against Satish and his mother in law, stating therein, that the accused used
to demand dowry from the deceased and it is not the case of suicide but it is
 the case of murder. However, he was not in a position to meet the demand
of accused and other family members so they have killed her sister. The
body was sent for conducting the post-mortem. According to the post-
mortem report, the deceased was strangulated and thereafter, her body was
burnt.

5. After five days of the incident, Arvind, the brother of the deceased and
father of Satish happened to meet at a market place and started to quarrel
and grappled with each other. Both fell down. In the heat of passion Satish’s
father slapped Arvind saying that his sister ruined his son’s life and he will
have to pay for it. Arvind in fit of rage took a stick lying nearby and gave a
blow to Satish’s father on his stomach. Satish father had stitches on his
stomach due to surgery before 15 days. He fell down instantly. Before
dying his father gave his Dying Declaration regarding the fight between
them and that Arvind had knowledge of the enlarged spleen. Vastral police
arrested Arvind, Investigation was completed and police filed charge sheet.

6. Evidence was led by prosecution in the sessions Court and during trial an
eyewitness stated that it was satish’s father who slapped Arvind and started
the fight. Trial Court relying on Dying Declaration of Satish’s father
convicted Arvind for commission of murder and sentenced him for life
imprisonment. Arvind challenged the conviction by filing a Criminal
Appeal, before the High Court of Gujarat, The mater is pending in High
Court of Gujarat for Final hearing.

7. In the Matter between the deceased and Satish Nair and his family
members, the Trial Court after considering all the aspects, examining and
cross examining all the parties stated that it seems that in the present case
there are no eyewitnesses of the incident. However, the chain of the events
in the present case is complete leaving no room for any other hypothesis
except that the accused were responsible for the death of the victim. Satish
nair while cross examination told that they had never asked for any dowry,
and added that they had two to three times asked to support family in day to
day expenses.

8. The Trial Court passes an order dated 26.4.2014 whereby the

appellants/accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences
punishable u/s 302, 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and u/s 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, were acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 304B, 498A
and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but they were convicted u/s 302 and 201
IPC. The Trial Court has sentenced the appellants to undergo life
 imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each u/s 302 IPC and in case of
default of fine, to undergo additional two years' rigorous imprisonment.

9. Appellants ie. Satish and his mother was further directed to undergo two
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1s000/- each for the offence
u/s 201 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo six
months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

10. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused, as
aforementioned. All the accused filled appeal in the High Court of Gujarat
challenging the order of Trial Court.

Both the matters is pending in the High Court of Gujarat for Final Hearing

Disclaimer: This problem is the hypothetical moot problem. It is only for

the academic purpose having no concern with any of the pending/decided
cases before any court and all details and name of parties are fictitious
and nothing to do with reality, even if fond similar it is only coincident.