K.E.

S LAW COLLEGE

MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE BHARATVARSHA

NEW DELHI, BHARATVARSHA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION
AND
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32.

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Lashkar-e-Jashmir
APPELLANTS
V.

Central government of Bharatvarsha & Ors .

RESPONDENTS

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARATVARSHA

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………......3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…….……………………………………………………..4
STATEMENT OF FACTS…….…………………………………………………………….…5
STATEMENT OF ISSUES....……….…………………………………………………………7
ARGUMENT ADVANCED…...….……………………………………………………….….10
PRAYER……………………….…………………………………………………………......28

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES

I. http://www.manupatrafast.com
II. http://www,sccoline.com
III. http://www.westlaw.com
IV. http://www.lexisnexis.com

CASES REFERRED

1. Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham 1979 AIR 1284, 1979 SCR

(3) 482

2. Delhi Judicial Service ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc 1991 AIR
2176, 1991 SCR (3) 936

3. Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor on 28 March, 1988

4. Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 SC 1074, 1988 (1) SCALE 598,

(1988) 2 SCC 488, 1988 (1) UJ 650 SC

5. Owners And Parties Interested In ... vs Fernandeo Lopez & Ors

6. 1989 AIR 2206, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 187

3
7. Haripada Dey vs The State Of West Bengaland ..: 1956 AIR 757,
1956 SCR 639

8. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 AER 458 at 459

9. Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration, [1976] 2 SCR 11 at 30 

10.Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114;

11. Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant have endorsed there pleadings

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Sec 136 of the
Constitution of India

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ravinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh was married to Satpal

Singh in November, 1962. She died on 25th June, 1983 at about 2.30
P.M. It was alleged, she committed suicide because of the
harassment, constant taunts and cruel behaviour of her in-laws towards
her and persistent demand for dowry and insinuations that she was
carrying an illegitimate child. It is alleged, provoked by the aforesaid
conduct and behaviour she committed suicide. The father-in-law, mother-
in-law and the husband of the deceased have been the abetters of the crime
and the deceased died of second to third degree burns and there was
sprinkling of kerosene oil on her body and the body was burnt by fire.
2. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was absence was
absence of burn injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law and other
members of the family. As mentioned before the deceased was married in
November, 1982, After marriage, she used to stay in the house of her in-
laws at Raja Sansi. The deceased used to visit the house of her parents at
Amritsar occasionally, as noted before. During these visits she used to tell
them the her in-laws were not happy with the dowr given to the latter.
3. It is further on evidence that she complained that her in-laws used to taunt
her and insisted on her to bring more dowry. It is stated that she
complained that the in-laws taunted her that at the time of the marriage, her
parents did not serve proper meals to the in-laws and their guests. It is
further stated that the accused used to tell her that they had been offered
fridge etc by other parties for the marriage of the accused while she had not
brought dowry expected from her parents. It is also on evidence that she
was often openly threatened that she would be turned out of the house in
case she did not bring more articles .These were all established by the
evidence of Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased and his two
daughters. It was insinuated of her by the accused that she was also
carrying an illegitimate child.
4. On the totality of evidence on record held that the accused were guilty
of abetment to suicide and as such punishable under Section 306 of the
I.P.C. On appeal by the accused the High Court was of the view that the
guilt of the accused had not been proved and as such acquitted them.
5. The complainant and father of the deceased aggrieved by the order of the
High Court preferred these appeals by way of special leave to appeal.

6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
Whether this special leave petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
supreme court of India or not?

ISSUE II

Whether the daughter of the Petitioner committed Suicide?

ISSUE III

Whether the accused were guilty of abatement to suicide?

ISSUE IV
Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred in acquitting the accused due to its
view that the evidences were too meagre for conviction?

7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India that this special leave petition is maintainable in this
Court. Article 136 of the Constitution of India

II. WHETHER THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER

COMMITTED SUICIDE?
The cruel behavior and constant taunts and harassment caused by the
accused persons while Ravinder Kaur, the Petitioners deceased daughter
was in her in-law’s house instigated her to commit suicide and in thorough
consideration no other reasonable view follows from appraisement of the
evidences on record. 
III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY OF ABATMENT TO
SUICIDE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the evidence in the
present case sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the
abetment of suicide of petitioners daughter, Ravinder Kaur.The chain of
circumstantial evidence as formed by the prosecution has been established
beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty as charged.

IV. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE

ACCUSED DUE TO ITS VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE WERE
TOO MEAGER FOR CONVICTION?

The High Court without properly considering and weighing the evidences
of the prosecution witnesses and on a wrong appreciation of the evidences
found that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 306 of
I.P.C holding on the fact that there was no evidence on record that the
accused at the time of commission of suicide by the deceased, in any way
was instigating her to commit suicide even though it has been brought but
in evidences that the deceased was being maltreated by the accused.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

1. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India that this special leave petition is maintainable in this
Court. Article 136 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: -

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court —

(I) Notwithstanding 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 (I) 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.

2. The power of the Court to hear appeals in this article is much

wider and general. It vests in the SC' plenary jurisdiction in the
matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special
leave against: -
i. any judgment, decree, determination or order,
ii. in any cause or matter,
iii. Passed or made by any court or tribunal.
3. The Petitioner in the present case has filed the SLP under
article 136 as the High Court has acquitted the accused

10
 (respondent) for the offense of abetment to suicide and hence is
maintainable.
4. It was held by the Supreme court that "Under Article 136 there is no room
for any doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the
Judgment and orders passed by any court or Tribunal in the country. In
addition to the appellate power, the Court has special residuary power to
entertain appeal against any order of any court in the country. The
plenary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave and hear appeals against
ally order of a court or Tribunal, confers power of judicial
superintendence over all the courts and Tribunals in the territory of India
including subordinate courts of Magistrate and District Judge. This Court
has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India." 1
5. Also, In another case the S.C has contended the following:
"Article 136 of the Constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a
plenitude of plenary, appellate power over all courts and Tribunals in
India. The power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article
136 itself qualifying that power. But. the very nature of the power has led
the court to set limits to which to exercise such power. 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 public importance arises or a decision shocks
the conscience of the Court. But, within the restrictions imposed by itself
this Court has the undoubted power to interfere even with findings off act,
making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the

1
Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hasari Court Delhi v State of Gujarat and
others, (1991) 4 SCC 406, 440.

11
 High Court, in arriving at those, findings. has acted "perversely or
otherwise improperly".2
6. Here, the respondent has led to the death of the Petitioner’s daughter
and then also the respondent has been acquitted from the offence of
abetment to suicide committed by him. This reckless behaviour of
High Court clearly proves that the decision was given perversely or
improperly. And therefore this petition is maintainable before the
Supreme Court of India.
7. Decided cases, however, establish that the Supreme Court will
grant special leave appeal in exceptional cases which are:-3
• Where grave and substantial injustice has been done by disregard to
the forms of legal
process, or
• Violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise.
8. Thus, it is crystal clear from the above mentioned facts that the SC will
not grant special leave to appeal under 136 of the constitution of India
unless it is shown that special and exceptional circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case in question
presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision
appealed against.

9. Further, in the exercise of its special leave appellate jurisdiction,

the Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings
2
Arunachalam vs P. S. R. Sadhanantham 1979 AIR 1284, 1979 SCR (3)
482
3
Delhi Judicial Service ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc
1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 936

12
 of the Courts below, unless, of course, the findings are perverse or
vitiated by error of law, or if there is gross miscarriage of justice.
10.Similar contention has been held in the following words "This Court
does not reappraise the evidence unless the findings are perverse or
are vitiated by any error of law or there is a grave miscarriage of
justice ".4
11.The Supreme Court is duty bound to interfere with the findings of fact
even if they have been affirmed thrice.It was held as following:-‘’If
and when the Court is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is
not only the 'right' but also the 'duty' of this Court to reverse the error
and the injustice and to upset the finding notwithstanding the fact that it
has been affirmed thrice."5.

12.In exceptional cases the Court admits appeals under Article 136 even
though the appellant has not exhausted all the other remedies. If there
are exceptionally sound reasons for such admission.
13.In case M.V. "Vail Pero" V. Fernanedo Lopez it was held that:-"This
academic exercise is unnecessary in the present case since it cannot be
doubted that irrespective of the question of res judicata. earlier decision on
the same point by a Division Bench of the High Court will at least be a
binding precedent when the matter is reagitated before the Division Bench
hearing the appeal against the. final decision in the suit. In such a situation
directing the resort to the remedy of an appeal under the Letters Patent

4
Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra Etc vs K. S. Dalipsinghji & Anr., Etc on 31 March, 1970
AIR 45, 1969 SCR (3) 130
5
Indira Kaur And Ors. vs Sheo Lal Kapoor on 28 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 SC 1074, 1988 (1) SCALE 598, (1988) 2 SCC 488,
1988 (1) UJ 650 SC

13
 against the final decision in the suit will needlessly delay decision of the point
by this Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in the present case, it is
neither necessary to decide the question of res judicata argued before us nor
would it be appropriate to refuse leave and direct the petitioner to first exhaust
the remedy of an appeal under the Letters Patent in the High Court. We,
accordingly, proceed to decide the point involved on merits. Leave granted."6
14.Supreme Court has also held that:-"No High Court has the jurisdiction to
pass on mere questions of fact for firther consideration by this Court under
the relevant articles of the Constitution. We no doubt possess that power and in
proper cases have exercised it under article 136(1). If there has been a gross
miscarriage of justice or a departure from legal procedure such as vitiates
the whole trial we would certainly intervene and we would also intervene if
even the +findings of fact were such as were shocking to our judicial conscience
and grant in such cases special leave to appeal under article 136(1)".7
15.In the present case there has been injustice with the petitioner and the
petitioner being the aggrieved party seeks justice. Therefore she has
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Since the case is very
sensitive, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court in order to
obtain justice.

6
Owners And Parties Interested In ... vs Fernandeo Lopez & Ors
1989 AIR 2206, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 187
7
Haripada Dey vs The State Of West Bengaland ..: 1956 AIR 757, 1956 SCR 639

14
II. WHETHER THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER
COMMITTED SUICIDE?

1. It is contended on behalf of the accused that there was no direct

evidence of the act of suicide by Ravinder Kaur. There, indeed, could
not be in the circumstances in which she died. She was in the house of
her in-laws. There is ample and sufficient evidence that she had
complained that she was taunted for bringing meagre dowry and that
even insinuated that she was carrying 'an illegitimate child'. The
aforesaid facts stand established by cogent and reliable evidence.
2. These are grave and serious provocation enough for an ordinary woman
in the Indian set up, to do what the deceased is alleged.to have done.
There is also evidence that the persons in the house of her in-laws
including the mother-in-law-mother of the accused Satpal Singh, made
no attempt to save her from the burn injuries. The absence of any burn
injury in the hands of the people around, indicates and establishes that
there was no attempt to save the deceased though she was seen being
burnt.
3. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there is no direct
evidence indicating the circumstances in which the death took place,
the conduct of the accused and the nature of the crime with which the
accused was charged, there cannot be any scope of doubt that the
learned Sessions Judge was right and the conviction was properly
made.
4. The accused no. 3 Smt. Kanwal Dip Kaur, the mother of the accused,

Satpal Singh stated in her statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. that she was
lying in her house at the time and the deceased was cooking food in the
kitchen on a kerosene stove and she caught fire accidentally.

15
5. The contention by the accused, that it was case of accidental fire and
not a case of suicide, was falsified by the absence of burn injuries on
the fingertips of the mother-in-law or other members of the family. The
Trial Court rightly held "that the intending circumstances show that she
was not allowed to move till the process of burning had become
irrecoverable and till she succumbed to her injuries."
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the absence of burn
injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law or other members of the
family as evident from the statement of D.W. 1, Jaswant Singh, ruled
out the story of accidental fire as set up by the defense.
7. The cruel behavior, maltreatment and taunts for not bringing sufficient
dowry have been made to the deceased, Ravinder Kaur, soon after her
coming to the house of her in-laws. It has also been urged that in
November, 1982 she complained of her in-laws' ill- treatment and
taunts to her father and her father took her to his house.
8. It has also been urged that the accused Satpal Singh and his father
Harbhajan Singh and other relatives of the accused met the deceased’s
father at his house and requested him to send his daughter to the house
of her in-laws and assured them that they would not maltreat her or
taunt her or torture her for not bringing sufficient dowry. These
assurances were given in the presence of Ved Prakash, the President of
the Mohalla Sudhar Committee, and Raj Kumari, a social worker and
one Ramesh Kumar. Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased on these
assurances given by the accused and their relations sent his daughter,
Ravinder Kuar to her in laws house.
9. It has also been urged that on June 23, 1983 the two daughters Surjit
Kaur and Sujinder Kaur were sent by Gurbachan Singh to the house of
the in- laws of Ravinder Kaur to enquire about her welfare. Surjit Kaur,

16
 PW-7 stated in her statement under S. 161 Cr. P.C. that her sister
Ravinder Kaur complained them about the same ill-treatment by her
husband continuing in the same manner as before and as such she was
not happy.
10.In the FIR lodged by the complainant it has been specifically stated that
due to constant harassment of Ravinder Kaur by the accused persons
for having brought less dowry in her marriage as well as due to
constant taunts and also torture, the deceased committed suicide by
pouring kerosene oil on her and burnt herself and afterwards she died.
It has been further stated in the FIR that the complainant apprehended
that some quarrel must have happened on the day of the incident
between his daughter, Ravinder Kaur and her husband Satpal Singh,
father-in-law Harbhajan Singh and mother-in-law Kanwaldip Kaur
before she took the extreme step. P.W. 4
11. He further stated that on 25th June, 1983 at 6.30 p.m. Mohinder Singh,

maternal uncle of Satpal Singh came to shop and told him that his
daughter had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body
and then setting her on fire. In his statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C.
recorded on 23rd July, 1983 he also stated that her two daughters
namely Sajinder Kaur and Surjeet Kaur (P.W. 7) who visited Raja
Sansi to meet their sister, Ravinder Kaur two days before the incident
were told by her deceased daughter that her in-laws often taunted her
for not bringing sufficient dowry.
12.The defense story as stated by her mother-in-law has no infirmity and
holding on to consideration and appraisement of the evidences as well
as the circumstances set out hereinbefore that it was not a case of
accidental fire but a case of suicide committed by the deceased

17
 Ravinder Kaur being constantly abused, taunted for bringing less dowry
and also being defamed for carrying an illegitimate child. 
13.The decision cited by accused in State of Haryana v. Wazir Chand and
Another, [1989] 1 SCC 244
This decision is not at all applicable to the instant case, that the
evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish that the
deceased Ravinder Kaur committed suicide at the instigation and
abetment of the accused persons in the commission of the said offence.
14.It is also in evidence that they also taunted her for carrying an
illegitimate child. All these tortures and taunts caused depression to her
mind and drove her to take the extreme step of put- ting an end to her
life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and setting fire.
Circumstantial evidence as well as the evidences of the prosecution
witnesses clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
persons instigated and abetted Ravinder Kaur, deceased in the
commission of the offence by committing suicide by burning herself.
15.The Trial Court also held that a respectable lady cannot bear this kind
of false allegation levelled against her and this must have mentally
tortured her. Thus the persistent demands of the accused for more
money, their tortures and taunts amounted to instigation and abetment
that compelled her to do away with her life
16.On a proper consideration and weighing of the evidences the only
reasonable view that can be taken is that the cruel behaviour and
constant taunts and harassment caused by the accused persons while
Ravinder Kaur, deceased was in her in-laws house instigated her to
commit suicide and in thorough consideration no other reasonable view
follows from appraisement of the evidences on record. 

18
 17.In appeal before the High Court it was not urged on behalf of the
accused that the case of suicide was not proved and as such there was no
finding by the High Court on this score. In such circumstances this
argument that there lacked sufficient evidence to prove a case of suicide
is totally devoid of merit and as such it is not sustainable.

III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY OF ABATMENT TO

SUICIDE?

1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the totality of evidence on

record held that the accused were guilty of abetment to suicide and as
such punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
2. Circumstantial evidence as well as the prosecution witnesses in the instant
case clearly prove beyond doubt that the accused instigated and abetted
Ravinder Kaur, deceased in the commission of the offence by committing
suicide by burning herself.
3. The evidence of attitude and conduct of the in-laws--the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and the husband after Ravinder Kaur, the deceased, got
burns in not informing the parents and not taking prompt steps to take her
to hospital for giving medical assistance corroborate the inference that
these accused connived and abetted the crime.
4. Being depressed with the taunts and ill-treatment the deceased committed
suicide by sprinkling kerosene on her person and setting her to fire. The
evidences of PW-4 Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased and the
evidence of PW-7 Surjeet Kaur as well as evidence of PW-6 Raj Kumari
were duly considered by the trial court and the trial court clearly found the
accused persons guilty of the offence of abetting the suicide committed by
the deceased.

19
5. Thee doubt must be of a reasonable man 8. The standard adopted must be
the standard adopted by a prudent man which, of course, may vary from
case to case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated devotion to the
rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicions and thereby destroy social defense. Justice cannot be made
sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish
an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
6. The conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule but that is
coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the
judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would
permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness
of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be
investigated.
7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there is no direct evidence
indicating the circumstances in which the death took place, however the
conduct of the accused like; though the house of the accused persons being
not far off the information was given not by the accused to the the appellant
or other members of the family promptly but it was given by the maternal
uncle of the accused, Satpal Singh at 6.30 p.m. to although the incident
occurred at about 2.30 p.m. and the nature of the crime with which the
accused was charged, there cannot be any scope of doubt that the learned
Sessions Judge was right and the conviction was properly made. 
8. It is also evident that the deceased, Ravinder Kaur who had second to third
degree burns on her person was brought to the hospital in the evening and
the doctor, P.W. I immediately examined her and declared that she was
already dead.

8
Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 AER 458 at 459

20
9. The testimonies of witnesses P.W. 4, Gurbachan Singh, P.W. 5, Ved
Prakash, President of the Mohalla Sudhar Committee, P.W. 6, Smt. Raj
Kumari, social worker and P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur clearly proved that the
respondents mal-treated the deceased for bringing less dowry and they
even tortured her for carrying an illegitimate child. The said witnesses also
testified to the greedy and lusty nature of the respondents that they were
persistently demanding more money.
10. Referring to this connection to the provisions of Section 113A of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 which provide that:

"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married women--When
the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been
abetted by her husband or any rela- tive of her husband and it is shown
that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date
of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband."
11.In the instant case the deceased, Ravinder Kaur was married to the accused,
Satpal Singh in November, 1982 and she committed suicide on June 25,
1983. It has also been found on a consideration of the circumstantial
evidence that she was compelled to take the extreme step of committing
suicide The suicide having been committed within a period of seven years
from the date of her marriage in accordance with the provisions of this
Section, the Court may presume having regard to all the other
circumstances of the case which have been set out earlier that such suicide
has been abetted by the husband and his relations.
12. The provisions of the said Section do not create any new offence and as
such it does not create any substantial right but it is merely a matter of

21
 procedure of evidence and as such it is retrospective 9 and will be applicable
to this case. 
13. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge are

quite in accordance with the provisions of the above Section  of the

Evidence Act ,that having given regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case it may be presumed that the accused persons have abetted the
suicide committed by the deceased and they fail to reverse this prosecution
case by any evidence. Accordingly, the accused were convicted under s.
306 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each
and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each, in default of payment of fine the
accused shall be further liable to rigorous imprisonment for four months.

IV. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE

ACCUSED DUE TO ITS VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE WERE
TOO MEAGER FOR CONVICTION?

1. The findings arrived at by the Trial Court after considering and weighing
the entire evidences are unexceptional . The findings arrived at by the High
Court are without considering properly the circumstantial evidence as
well the evidences of the prosecution witnesses cannot be sustained. So as
such the findings of the High Court are liable to be reversed and set aside.

2. The suicide having been committed within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage in accordance with the provisions of Section 113A
the Court may presume having regard to all the other circumstances of the
case that such suicide had been abetted by the husband and his relations.

9
Hals- bury's Laws of England, (Fourth Edition), Volume 44 Page 570 

22
3. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge are
quite in accordance with the provisions of this section and the findings of
the High Court that the accused persons could not be held to have
instigated or abetted the commission of offence, is not sustainable in law.
[308C-D]
4. The evidences of PW-4 Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased and the
evidence of PW-7 Surjeet Kaur as well as evidence of PW-6 Raj Kumari
were duly considered by the trial court and the trial court clearly found the
accused persons guilty of the offence of abetting the suicide committed by
the deceased.
5. The high court has wrongly found that the prosecution could not prove
charge against the accused and set aside the order of conviction and
sentence made by the trial court and acquitted the accused. It has been
urged in this connection that the defense that it was a case of accidental fire
and not of suicide was also not believed by the trial court and the trial court
gave very cogent and plausible reasons for not believing this story and
holding that it was a case of suicide committed fwby the deceased Ravinder
Kaur by the taunts and ill-treatment made to her by her in laws and this
forced her to take her own life by suicide.
6. The contention by the accused and findings of the High court that the
evidences were too meagre and unreliable to sustain the conviction and that
the prosecution could not prove the ingredients of Section 306, IPC as there
was no instigation by the accused nor there was any conspiracy for the
commission of that offence. The High Court arrived at this finding due to
some contradictions in the statement of the evidences of P.W. 4, Gurbachan
Singh, father of the deceased and of P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur, sister of the
deceased respectively with their statements made under Section 161 Cr.
P.C.

23
7. However,the following observations were made by the Supreme court of
India-
"It emerges clear that on a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling
him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the
record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case
whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the
witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a
part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the
witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and
considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and
care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record that part of his
testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it."10
8. The findings were arrived by the learned Sessions Judge on a proper
appreciation of the evidences adduced by the prosecution and The High
Court without properly considering and weighing the evidences of the
prosecution witnesses and on a wrong appreciation of the evidences found
that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C
holding on the fact that there was no evidence on record that the accused at
the time of commission of suicide by the deceased, in any way was
instigating her to commit suicide even though it has been brought but in
evidences that the deceased was being maltreated by the accused.

9. In their depositions Gurbachan Singh, Surjeet Kaur have clearly stated

about the ill-treatment, torture and the cruel behaviour meted out to the
deceased Ravinder Kaur which instigated her to take the extreme step of
putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and setting

10
Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration, [1976] 2 SCR 11 at 30 

24
 fire, delay in taking her to the hospital all indicate towards guilt of the
accused. The Trial Court rightly held that in such cases direct evidence is
hardly available. It is the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the
accused persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating
upon the trust- fulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.
10.It is being contended by the respondent that the petitioner took 24 hours
after receipt of the information regarding her daughter's death to make a
statement to the police about the incident with lodging the F.I.R. on the
same date, i.e. June 25, 1983 or on the following morning. The High Court,
therefore, held that all these circumstances would raise considerable doubt
regarding the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses (P.W. 4 and
P.W. 7) and point an infirmity in their evidence as would render it unsafe to
base the conviction of the accused. It is in evidence of P.W. 4 that he was
intimated about the death of his daughter by committing suicide, by the
maternal uncle of Satpal Singh, son-in-law on June 25, 1983 at about 5.30
p.m.
11.He immediately rushed to the hospital with members of his family where
his daughter was brought. It is also in his evidence that he stayed there the
whole night with his wife and other members of his family near the dead
body of his deceased daughter and also on the next day till the dead body
was handed over to him after the completion of post mortem in the
afternoon. The Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police of Ajnala Police Station
reached SGTB Hospital on the next day i.e. on June 26, 1983 and got his
statement recorded there. It has been rightly held by the Additional
Sessions Judge that in the circumstances it cannot be said that there has
been any delay in reporting the matter to the police
12. The Supreme Court considered its earlier judgments and observed as
“Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of

25
 inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the
possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay
is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without
giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine
whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and
circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant
appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused
falsely”11.
13.It is therefore being submitted to this court, by the means of Special Leave
Petition that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide by
Ravinder Kaur, deceased and the accused are, therefore, guilty of the said
charge. The order of acquittal made by the High Court is not sustainable in
these circumstances.

11
 Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114; Mukesh v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1

26
 PRAYER

It is hereinafter most humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India that in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities
cited and pleadings made the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;
1. Grant the Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
2. Respondent should be punishable for abetment to suicide under Section
306 I.P.C.

3. Any other just and equitable order may be passed in the favour of the
petitioner.
AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

27
All of which is humbly prayed.
Sd/-
(Counsel for the Appellant)

28