-Cause title- -Defence-

MULTI MOOT

SEPTEMBER 2019

BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Under Section 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure)

RAJ & ORS APPELLANT

Vs.
THE STATE DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

-Table of Contents- -Defence-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS

(2) INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
(3) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
(4) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
(5) STATEMENT OF FACTS
(6) QUESTIONS OF LAW
(7) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
(8) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE DYING DECLARATION MADE BY PRASANTHI IS ADMISSIBLE
FOR THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS?
2. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS U/S 302, 498A OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1956 CAN BE
JUSTIFIED?

(9) PRAYER

II
-Index of Abbreviations- -Defence-

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. § SECTION
2. ¶ PARAGRAPH
3. & AND
4. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
5. Annex. ANNEXURE
6. Anr. ANOTHER
7. Art. ARTICLE
8. Consti. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
9. Cr. CRIMINAL
10. CrPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
11. FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
12. Govt. GOVERNMENT
13. HC HIGH COURT
14. Hon’ble HONORABLE
15. i.e. THAT IS
16. IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
17. No. NUMBER
18. Ors. OTHERS
19. P. PAGE
20. r/w READ WITH
21. SC SUPREME COURT
22. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
23. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER
24. Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY
25. @ ALIAS
26. U/S UNDER SECTION
27. UOI UNION OF INDIA
28. V./Vs. VERSUS
29. W.r.t WITH RESPECT TO

III
-Index of Authorities- -Defence-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
4. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

BOOKS

1. D.D. BASU, Constitution of India, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur.

2. D.D. BASU, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 4th Edn,
2010.
3. GAUR K. D, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,4th Ed.,2013.
4. HARI SINGH GOUR, The Penal Law of India, 4869, (11th Edition, Delhi Law House, New
Delhi, 2006)
5. H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary. [Delhi Universal Law
Publishing Co. Ltd].
6. J. W. CECIL TURNER KENNY’S, Outlines of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press,
1952.
7. KELKAR R. V., Criminal Procedure Code, Pillai Eastern Book Company, 4th Ed.2007
(Revised by Dr. K. N Chandrasekharan).
8. M P JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, 1180, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur,
2010.
9. PETER MURPHY, Evidence, Oxford University Press, 11th Edition.
10. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 20th Ed. 2011(Y Chandrachud J. &V R Manohar J.).
11. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 30th Ed. 2008(Y V Chandrachud J. &V R Manohar J.).
12. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa &
Company Nagpur, 24th Ed. 2012 (Y V Chandrachud J. & V R Manohar J.).

IV
-Index of Authorities- -Defence-

CASES

1. Ulka Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2. K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor
3. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay
4. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka
5. Munnu Raja v. State of M.P
6. U.P. v. Madan Mohan
7. Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
8. Singh v. The State
9. Sayarabano Alias Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra
10. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav
11. Kushal Rao v State of Bombay
12. Jagbir Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi)
13. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
14. Bakhtawar v. State of Haryana.
15. Subhash Ramkumar Bind Vakil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
16. Bhagat Singh v Commissioner of Police
17. Kishan Singh v State of Punjab
18. Sarju Modi v State Of Bihar
19. Vidya Devi v State of Haryana
20. State of AP v Raj Gopa Awasa
21. Uma Devi v The State & Another
22. State of AP v Raj Gopal Asawa

V
-Statement of Jurisdiction- -Defence -

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
present case by virtue of Section 374(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

“374. Appeals from convictions.

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.”

VI
-Summary of Arguments- -Defence-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Raj and Prasanthi married on 15.9.2011 after 5 years of relationship. Prasanthi with a degree in BA,
BL was giving tuition in their newly rented home in sreesai nagar. On 15.7.2013 Prasanthi was
admitted in the government hospital with 44% burns. Hospital records mentioned that Prasanthi’s
friend Suganya admitted her on the same day. Prasanthi gave her First statement to head Constable of
police wherein she stated that she accidentally got the burns due to burning candle and FIR was
registered on its basis. Same day a statement was recorded by Executive Magistrate after getting
fitness certificates from doctor which was similar to her first statement. On 23.7.2013 a dying
declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Prasanthi’s parents and
brother wherein she alleged that her husband Raj had set her on fire. Prasanthi died on 14.8.2013 and
FIR was altered into offence under sec 302 and 498A of IPC. After the investigation police filed the
charge sheet against Raj his father Subbiah and mother Nagarathinam and foster sister Indira . Trial
court acquired all the accused on 8.5.2014. State preferred criminal appeal no.0057/14 before high
Court of Delhi, New Delhi. The high Court on 17.10.2014 convicted the appellant mother, father and
sister under section 498A IPC and sec 4 Dowry prohibition act 1956. The appellant Raj was convicted
sec 302 and sec498A of IPC and sec 4 of dowry prohibition act 1956, based on dying declaration.
Appeallant and his family have preferred an appeal before the hon’ble Supreme Court of India against
the decision of the high court.

VII
-Summary of Arguments- -Defence-

QUESTIONS OF LAW

1. WHETHER THE DYING DECLARATION MADE BY PRASANTHI IS

ADMISSIBLE FOR THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS?

2. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS U/S 302, 498A OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1956 CAN BE
JUSTIFIED?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE DYING DECLARATION MADE BY PRASANTHI IS

ADMISSIBLE FOR THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS?

It is submitted that the dying declaration made by the deceased Prasanthi is admissible for the
conviction of the accused persons as the dying declaration made fulfilled all the elements of Section
32(1) of Indian Evidence Act and has drawn the credibility and validity to acquire the evidentiary
value status.

2. WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS U/S 302, 498A OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1956 CAN BE
JUSTIFIED?

It is submitted that the conviction of the appellants u/s 302, 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
prohibition Act, 1956 has been made under justifiable grounds as the evidences and corroboration
made are admissible in the court of law been which it fulfilled all the ingredients of the legal
provision.

VIII
-Prayer- -Defense-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE DYING DECLARATION MADE BY PRASANTHI IS ADMISSIBLE FOR THE

CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS

It is submitted that the dying declaration made by the deceased Prasanthi is admissible for the
conviction of the accused persons as the dying declaration made has fulfilled all the elements of
Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act and has drawn the credibility and validity to acquire the
evidentiary value status.

1.1 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DYING DECLARATION

Section 32 (1) “When it relates to cause of death.—When the statement is made by a person as to the
cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in
cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.”

The above provision of the Indian Evidence Act envisage the concept of dying declaration having an
evidentiary value in case of proving the cause of death either natural or unnatural. The statement made
are in relevance with the cause of death, the person involved in causing the death and are considered
relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under
exception of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death
comes into question. The council for the State (hereinafter the Defendants) would like to draw the
attention of the hon’ble court to, what is a dying declaration for which the council submits that in the
case of Ulka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Apex Court held that, “when a statement is made by a
person as to cause of his death or as to any circumstances of transaction which resulted into his death,
in case in which cause of his death comes in question is admissible in evidence, such statement in law
are compendiously called dying declaration.” Wherefore in the light of the Latin maxim nemo
morturus procsumitur mentri, the council submits that the principle on which a dying declaration is
admitted as an evidence for conviction as indicated, a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his
mouth is considered to be an appropriate theory for justification and for the credibility of the
statement.1

In K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, evidentiary value of dying declaration was observed as under:-

“The dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under section 32 & not being statement on oath so
that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the court has to apply the scrutiny & the closest
circumspection of the statement before acting upon it. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached
to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to

1
P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka

XV
-Prayer- -Defense-

connect a case as to implicate an innocent person, yet the court has to be on guard against the
statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination.
The court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement after the
deceased had a clear opportunity to observe & identify his assailants & that he was making the
statement without any influence. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true &
voluntary, it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without further corroboration.”

1.2 PRINCIPLES FOR DYING DECLARATION TO BE A RELIABLE EVIDENCE FOR

CONVICTION

The council humbly submit before this hon’ble court that the facts are very sound and clear above the
incident happened to the deceased Mrs. Prasanthi through her statements to the Magistrate which is
admissible as a dying declaration. As per the facts of the case on 23.7.2013 a dying declaration was
recorded by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Prasanthi’s parents and brother wherein she
alleged that her husband Raj had set her on fire, this statement made to the appropriate authority after
fulfillin all the essential ingridients for its admissibiity has proved the dying declararion to be valid
evidence. Inorder to substatiate the credibility of the dying declaration the council would like to draw
the attention of the court to the principles laid down by the Apex court in the case Khushal Rao v.
State of Bombay, as follows;

 There is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of
conviction unless corroborated. A true & voluntary declaration needs no corroboration. 2
 A dying declaration is not a weaker kind of evidence than any other piece of evidence;
 Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which
the dying declaration was made.
 A dying declaration stands on the same footing as other piece of evidence & has to be judged
in the light of surrounding circumstances & with reference to the principle governing the
weight of evidence.
 A dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper
manner stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral
testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory & human character.

Keeping the reliability upon the above principles the council submits the dying declaration have
proved to have a same weightage of all other evidences and has an evidentiary value for conviction.

2
Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. [(1976) 3 SCC 104 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 376 : (1976) 2 SCR 764] ) 2 (1992) 2
SCC 474

XVI
-Prayer- -Defense-

1.3. EVALUATION OF DYING DECLARATION

As laid down in U.P. v. Madan Mohan, the council would humbly submits before the hon’ble court
that the upheld principles for the evaluation the dying declaration mentioned below have made a
cogency with the facts and circumstances of the statement of the deceased, the council draws the
attention of the court regarding the principles of evaluation of a dying declaration;

Firstly, the court is under an obligation to look into the credibility of the statement which should
inspire full confidence as the maker of the dying declaration is not available for cross-examination. In
the instant fact is it very clear that the circumstances also proved that the deceased person’s marriage
life was not satisfactory.

Secondly, Court should satisfy that there was no possibility of tutoring or prompting, which was also
not witnessed as per the instant fact.

Thirdly, Certificate of doctor should mention that victim was in a fit state of mind. For which the
council would like to draw attention to the fact, “Same day a statement was recorded by Executive
Magistrate after getting fitness certificates from doctor”

Fourthly, Dying declaration should be recorded by the executive magistrate & police officer to record
the dying declaration only if condition of the deceased was so precarious that no other alternative was
left, this condition was also satisfied as per the fact.

The general principle on which this species of evidence are admitted is that they are declarations
made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone,
when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak only the truth. If evidence in a case reveals that the declarant has reached this
state while making a declaration then within the sphere of the Indian law, while testing the credibility
of such dying declaration weightage can be given. 3 Thus it could form the sole basis of conviction. It
is thus necessary that a Court trying the case should have before it a correct and faithful record of the
statement made by the dead person.4

1.2. UNINFLUENCED DYING DECLARATION IN CASE OF MULTIPLICITY

In Sayarabano Alias Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra, the offence involved was under Section
302 of the IPC. There was a quarrel between the appellant/accused and the deceased, during which, it
was the case of the prosecution that appellant poured kerosene from the lamp on the deceased which
3
Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
4
Singh v. The State (AIR 1962 SC 439)

XVII
-Prayer- -Defense-

resulted in the deceased catching fire and finally succumbing to death. In the first dying declaration,
the deceased attributed her catching fire to an accident. She absolved all the inmates of her husband
family of any wrong doing. When the Special Judicial Magistrate was called on the next day for dying
declaration, she set up a different version where under the accused was alleged to have thrown the
kerosene lamp on her and also that her husband used to beat her after listening to his mother. The
deceased was asked by the Magistrate as to why she was changing the statement. The deceased told
the Magistrate that she was told that she should not give any statement against family members and
she reiterated that the appellant/ mother-in-law of the deceased had thrown the kerosene lamp and she
was burnt, by relying upon the above facts in the case which is similar to the instant case multiplicity
of dying declaration statements does not reduce the credibility of the high valued declaration made. If
the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it,
without corroboration.5 Thus in case of multiple dying declarations the one which is uninfluenced can
be taken as a valid one.

1.3. FITNESS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF DYING DECLARATION

To check the admissibility of a dying declaration a major ingredient to be fulfilled is that the person
providing the statement must be mentally and physically fit and a fitness certificate must be acquired
from the medical officer.6 The law on the issue of dying declaration can be summarised to the effect
that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been
recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the
declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for
recording conviction. In such an eventuality no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple
dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration
recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon. 7 It is submitted that, with respect
to the above facts the criteria laid down has been thoroughly fulfilled thus making the dying
declaration made by the deceased admissible as an evidence. Thus relying upon the declaration made
either oral or in writing, by a person whose death is imminent, the principle attributed to Mathew
Arnold that “truth sits upon the lips of a dying man” and no man will go to meet his maker with
falsehood in his mouth will come into play. The principles relating to dying declaration are no longer
res integra and it would be appropriate to make the conviction of the accused. 8

Therefore it is submitted that the dying declaration made by the deceased is admissible as sole
evidence for the conviction of the accused”

5
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552
6
Kushal Rao v State of Bombay
7
Jagbir Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 September, 2019

8
Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat

XVIII
-Prayer- -Defense-

2.WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS U/S 302, 498A OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1956 CAN BE
JUSTIFIED?

It is submitted that the conviction of the appellants u/s 302, 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
prohibition Act, 1956 has been made under justifiable grounds as the evidences and corroboration
made are admissible in the court of law been which it fulfilled all the ingredients of the legal
provision.

2.1OFFENCE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT

The state would humbly submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,That, as per section 216 of
Cr.P.C., 1973, Court is at discretion to alter the charges at any stage before judgment, and in
accordance to which, the prosecution would request the court to alter the charge sheet and add section
3 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.As per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, “If
any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years,
and with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of
such dowry, whichever is more”, thus, taking or giving Dowry shall be punishable, with a term not
less than 5 years and a fine of not less than rupees 15 thousand or the amount of Dowry.As per section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, “If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents
or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees”, thus demanding
dowry is an illegal offence. Section 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not
attract double jeopardy, thus the import of word harassment and cruelty is also very well known, and
there is no arbitrary exercise of power in interpreting these word and it does not come in conflict with
article 14 of Indian Constitution.

2.2INJURIES INFLICTED INTENTIONALLY AND SUFFICIENT IN ORDINARY COURSE

OF NATURE TO CAUSE DEATH

In the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, the supreme court established and settled the essentials
of clause 3rd of Sec. 300 of IPC as following :

(i) There must be bodily injury caused by the accused

(ii) The accused must have intended that particular injury and no other, and

(iii) The bodily injury must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

XIX
-Prayer- -Defense-

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the instant case it is undisputed fact and
proved to this effect that bodily injury has been caused by the accused intentionally.It is humbly
submitted before this Hon’ble court that it is now well settled that if it is proved that the accused had
the intention to inflict the injuries actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the ingredients of clause thirdly of Sec.300
of the IPC are fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable under Sec.302 of the
IPC. Further the reliance can be placed upon Bakhtawar v. State of Haryana.Further it has been held
in Subhash Ramkumar Bind Vakil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra that bullet injuries on chest and
abdomen are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the case against the
appellant would fall squarely within the ambit of clause “thirdly” of Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal
Code.”

2.3 THE ACCUSED PERSONS AMOUNTS TO OFFENCE U/S 498A OF IPC

The state would humbly submit before the hon’ble supreme Court,That, as per section 216 of Cr.P.C.,
1973 Court is at discretion to alter the charges at any stage before judgment, and in accordance to
which, the prosecution would request the court to alter the charge sheet and add section 498A of IPC,
1860.That, in furtherance of afore-stated section, the acts of the accused persons is liable to be
punished on reasonable grounds, which are mentioned below.The Accused subjected the deceased to
cruelty. Here Cruelty includes mental torture as per explanation of section 498A of IPC, 1860.That,
For mental cruelty Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that, “mental cruelty and its effect varies
according to individual differences, differences in social status differences between societies ”, it even
said that “attitude of a person for another person can also be reason for mental cruelty”. 9That, for the
aforesaid reasons, accused should be charged with section 498A read with section 34 of IPC, 1860

2.4DOWRY DEATH AS PER SECTION 304B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

The state would humbly submit before the Hon’ble supreme Court that, Section 304 of Indian Penal
Code states that, “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 and 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. ”As
per the postmortem report, deceased’s 90% of body was burned. This also proves that the death of the
deceased was not under normal circumstances. That, the date, which is 15.09.2011 (that is 1years 10
months from the date of marriage) on which deceased was murdered, was within seven years of her
marriage. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v State of Haryana10 held that “expression

9
Malathi Ravi v. B.V.Ravi (2014) 7 SCC 640
10
AIR 2004 SC 476

XX
-Prayer- -Defense-

“soon before” is a relative term it has to be constructed in the context of specific circumstance of
each case no hard and fast rule of a universal application be laid down by prescribing a time limit”
there is no time prescribed time to define the nexus between the death or the cruelty or harassment.
Hence in this case a relative time limit can not be fixed.The meaning of cruelty for the purpose of
section 304B has to be gathered from the language as found in section 498A, IPC and as per
Explanation clause of that section. Cruelty means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life etc., or
harassment to coerce her or any other person related to her meet demand. Cruelty includes both
Physical and Mental torture.11The Hon’ble High Court in Vadde Rama Rao v State of AP12 held that
“if it is proved that plot to engineer the death of a married woman was hatched by in-laws their
actual participation would not be necessary to convict them”

That, all the ingredients of sections 304B are fulfilled, as:

a. Deceased’s death was caused by 90% of body burns, which is very abnormal situation
b. Deceased died exactly after 1 years 10 months, which is within seven years of her
marriage.
c. Deceased was constantly subjected to the mental cruelty
d. Deceased was subjected to cruelty, which was for obtaining dowry.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana13 held that “once the prosecution is
able to establish the ingredient of dowry death under 304B Of IPC the burden of proof of innocence
shifts of defence” and the same was also held in a case before, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanshraj v
State of Punjab14 held that “in case of a death of the women caused and satisfy the essentials of 304B
the husband and the husbands relatives will be presumed to have caused dowry death, and are liable
for the offence, unless it is proved otherwise. That is to say, the burden of proof shifts on the part of
the accused to prove his innocence unlike other offences wherein the accused is presumed innocent ”
and this judgment were followed by Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sarwan Kumar v State of
Himachal Pradesh15;And as the prosecution has clearly established all the ingredients of dowry death
as per section 304B.
Therfore, the accused should be charged under section 304B read with section 34 of IPC, 1860.

11
K. D. Gaur, Text book on Indian Penal Code, Fifth Edition, p558
12
1990 CrLJ 1666(AP)
13
AIR 2005 SC 3546
14
2000 (3) RI 556
15
AIR 2000 HP 239

XXI
-Prayer- -Defense-

PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE

DEFENSE HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT TO:

1. TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

2. TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED PERSONS RELYING UPON THE DYING
DECLARATION MADE BY THE DECEASED

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST

 OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE DEFENSE FACTION SHALL BEDUTY BOUND
FOREVER.

SD/-
(COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE)

XXII