ISSUE-1

THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A, 304B OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860 r/w SECTION 113B OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

It is humbly submitted that the accused Mr. Vishnu, Mrs. Laximidevi and Mr. Rohan
(hereinafter will be referred as A1, A4 AND A5 respectively) are guilty under section 498A 1,
304B 2of IPC r/w section 113B3 of IEA

The prosecution would divide the contentions into 3 sub issues to deal with this issue [1.1]
Accused has committed the offense of cruelty on victim; [1.2] Accused has caused dowry
death of victim; [1.3] It will raise a presumption under section 113B

This is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Session Court that the accused had committed
the offense of Cruelty on victim.

[1.1] Accused has committed the offense of cruelty

The ingredients of Section 498A are as follows4:

a) The women must be married

b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the
women or by his relative of her husband5

The object of section 498A of IPC was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or his
relatives in connection with the demand of dowry 6. This section has given a new dimension
to the concept of cruelty for the purpose of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct
described here would be relevant for proving cruelty7.

In furtherance of afore-stated section and objective of it, it is humbly submitted before the
hon’ble court the acts of the accused persons is liable to be punished on reasonable grounds
which are mentioned below.

1
§498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2
§ 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
3
§ 113B of Indian Penal, 1860
4
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,1860 (LexisNexis, 35 th Edition)
5
Suvetha v. State. (2009) 6 SCC 757 : 2009 CrLJ 2974
6
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 1986 Cri L.J 1510 (Del.)
7
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105: AIR 1988 SC 121: (1988) 1 AIR 169: 1988 BLJR 138.
After being scolded by PW2, he warned him that his daughter is married to him and he must
be ready for his daughter to bear effects of it. This warning was given in the presence of PW2
personal secretary PW3.When A1 returned home on that day and when he saw his wife he
started shouting on her for not getting a car from her paternal home, after which a quarrelled
followed. For months it become that they quarrel on the issue dowry. 8Cruelty for the
purpose of offense and the said section need not be physical, even mental torture or abnormal
behaviour may amount to cruelty. This principle was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gananath Pathak v. State of Orissa 9. In the instant case also mental
torture has been caused to the victim10.

The other two accused A4 &A5 also joined A1 and used to torture the victim for not bringing
adequate dowry from home.11 Same was confirmed by PW4 who is her close friend since
college days that her in laws tortured her for dowry12 and they wanted a car in dowry, she also
told that she will never tell about all this to her father 13. Even if it is mere demand for dowry
it will attract the provision of aforesaid section as it was observed by the Calcutta High Court
in the case of of Sankar Prasad v. State 14 that mere demand of dowry may not be an offense
under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but it is an offense under section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code.

In the case of Chandra v. State of A.P 15the accused stayed happily with wife for one and half
year then he demanded additional money and gold from her. He was held guilty under section
498-A. In the instant case also after 3 years of marriage the accused persons start demand of
dowry from the victim.

In the case of State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal 16the victim was subjected to abuses, humiliation
and mental torture by her mother in law. Her husband used to come drunk and abused and
assaulted her on occasions. Both her husband and mother-in-law were convicted under
section 498A. In the instant case also victim is subject to abuses and humiliation by her
8
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
9
Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619.
10
AIR 1998 SC 958
11
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
12
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
13
Annexure 4,Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
14
Sankar Prasad v. State, 1991 Cri. L.J. 639 (Cal.)
15
Chandra v. State of A.P, 1996 Cr LJ 2670 (AP)
16
W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418:1994 CrLJ 2014
husband and her in laws which is evident from the fact that once victim broke a glass, which
was predictably followed by A4 anger and she ended up slapping her. 17These all abuses and
humiliation become a routine business which even the neighbours were evident of.

In the case of Sarojkshan v. State of Maharastra 18the husband was highly suspicious nature,
always insult wife and not permitting anybody to her, all this was held to be suffiecent to
justify the husband’s conviction under cruelty. Similarly in the instant case also husband
alleged to have locked the vagina of wife and lock was taken by her all this done to prevent
her from making sexual relationship with other men and he also physically abused her. 19The
expression cruelty postulates such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the
mind of the wife that her living with husband will be harmful and injurious to her life. It is
obvious that such kind of behaviour have created a apprehension in the mind of victim that it
is harmful and injurious to her life, if she continues to live with her husband.

[1.2] Accused has caused dowry death of victim

17
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
18
Sarojkshan v. State of Maharastra, 1995 CrLJ 340 (Bom).
19
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
This is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Session Court that 1.2The accused had
committed the offense of dowry death. 1.3 It will also attract the provision of section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 304B, IPC and section 113B, Evidence Act, were inserted with the object of
combating the menace of dowry killings and the attempt was to encounter difficulties of
proof by creating a presumption.20

The Supreme Court took occasion in Shannti v. State of Haryana to explain the ingredients
of s. 304B. K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY J. Said, “A careful analysis of s. 304B shows that
this section has the following essentials:

The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances.21 The expression “otherwise than under normal circumstances” means
a death not taking place in the course of nature and apparently under suspicious
circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily injury 22. In the instant case death of victim has
caused due to internal bleeding which most probably cause due to some injury, this internal
bleeding resulted into hypovolemia and dyspnea23. Moreover blood stained clothes were
found and nail wound has been found on back and neck24. This all indicate that death is not
natural and occurred under suspicious circumstance.

25
Such Death should have been occurred within seven years of her marriage. In the instant
case marriage has been solemnized on 29th of December, 2007 and death occurs on 6th of July,
2014. 26 Thus this ingredient is also satisfied.

She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband soon before her death.

Such cruelty or harassment should be for in connection with demand of dowry27. Earlier it
has been established by the prosecution that victim is subject to cruelty by his husband and

20
State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, 2012 (2) SCC 182 : AIR 2012 SC 86
21
Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P, AIR 1991 SC 1142 :1991 SCC (Cr) 990
22
Rajayyan v. State of Kerela, AIR 1998 SC 1211 : 1998 CrLJ 1633
23
Annexure 2, Rem Juris 1st National Moot Court Competition
24
Ibid of 22
25
Arbind Kumar Ambasta v. State of Jharkahnd, 2002 CrLJ 3973 (Jhar)
26
Page 1, Moot Proposition, Rem Juris 1st National Virtual Moot Court Competition
27
Kashmir Kaur and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 1039; 2013 CrLJ
relative in connection with demand of dowry. In S. 304B there is no such explanation about
the meaning of cruelty but having regard to common background to these offense it has to be
taken that the meaning of cruelty or harassment is the same as prescribed in Explanation to s.
498A28.

In the case of Kishore Kumar v. State 29, the wife died in mysterious circumstances. There was
history of harassment and cruelty caused to her by in-laws and the husband. The accused
were held guilty under s.498A and 304B of the IPC. In the instant similar history exist of
harassment and cruelty by the husband and in-laws and also the victim died under suspicious
circumstance.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana 30observes that
where other ingredients of s. 304B are satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives
shall be deemed to have caused her death. In the instant case also all the necessary ingredient
required under s. 304B is satisfied now it is humbly submitted before the Hon ‘ble court that
held accused guilty of dowry death.

[1.3]It will raise a presumption under section 113B

As per section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, if the accused is being tried for the offense
of dowry death and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married women
for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or his relatives there shall be
presumption against the husband and the relatives. 31 It has been earlier established by the
prosecution that there has been dowry death of the victim and all also all other essentials
required under this section has been established so now it raises a presumption against the
accused.

The rule of law requires a person to be innocent till proved guilty. In contradiction to this
aspect, the legislature has applied the concept of deeming fiction to the provision of s. 304B.
The legislature has made this presumption a mandatory presumption of law, of course,
rebuttable, though this may sound to be a violent departure from the accepted norms of
criminal law.32 The legislature thought that the presumption under Section 113B should be a
mandatory presumption if the evil of dowry deaths is to be eradicated from the roots of our
28
Keshab Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, (1995) 1 CrLJ 178, 179 (Ori)
29
Kishore Kumar v. State, 1993 CrLJ 253 (Del)
30
Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana, 2010 (12) SCC 350: AIR 2010 SC 2839: 2010 CriLJ 4402
31
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (LexisNexis, 27 th Edition)
32
Ibid at 21
society. The legislature in its wisdom has used the word “shall” thus, making a mandatory
application on the part of the court to presume that death had been committed by the person
who had subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with or demand of dowry33.

34
The apex court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana observes that the once
prosecution proved it case regarding basic ingredients of s. 304B, the court will presume by
deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of, has caused her death.
In the instant case also the prosecution has already proved its case regarding basic ingredients
of s. 304B so by deemed fiction of law the accused persons are guilty of dowry death of the
victim.

The apex court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryna 35observes that Presumption
under this section is presumption of law. On proof of essentials mentioned therein, it becomes
obligatory on the court that the accused caused the dowry death. In the instant case also all
the essentials required under this section is satisfied so it is humbly submitted before the
Hon’ble session court to raise presumption under this section.

33
Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 691 : (2011) 11 SCC 359
34
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2010 (12) SCC 350 : AIR 2010 SC 2839 : 2010 CriLJ 4402
35
Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 215