CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

TEAM CODE-60

BHAWNA LAKHINA 2019BALLB09

KHUSHBOO SHARMA 2019BALLB110

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJKUMAR MUKHERJEE

SUSHMA MUKHERJEE ..
…..APPELLANTS

V.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..…

RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER UNDER SECTION 306 AND 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |1

 3rd NUJS-CCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |2

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................II
LIST OF REFERENCES AND CASES........................................................................................III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................V
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.........................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................VII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..................................................................................................VIII
PLEADINGS...................................................................................................................................1
I. THE ACCUSED HAD NOT SUBJECTED THE DECEASED TO CRUELTY AND
ARE THEREBY, NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860................................................................................................................................1
A. There was no wilful conduct of such nature as is likely to drive the deceased to
commit suicide.......................................................................................................................1

B. There was no cruelty subjected upon the deceased by either her husband or any
relative of her husband...........................................................................................................3

II. THE ACCUSED HAVE NOT ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED AND
ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860...........5
A. Suicide was not instigated or abetted by the accused....................................................5

B. Presumption under Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act, 1873 cannot be raised.......8

C. Allegations of Demand of Dowry are not sustainable................................................10

PRAYER........................................................................................................................................11

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |I

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

§ Section

A.I.R. All India Reporter

A.L.J. Allahabad Law Journal

A.P. Andhra Pradesh Law Journal

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Cr L.J. Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

I.L.R. Indian Law Reports

¶ Paragraph

Mad Madras

No. Number

Ors. Others

pg. Page

Raj Rajasthan

S.C. Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

v. Versus

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | II

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

LIST OF REFERENCES AND CASES

STATUTES

Indian Evidence Act, 1872..........................................................................................................8, 9

Indian Penal Code, 1860............................................................................................................1, 10

CASES

Ajit Kumar Manna and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal 2016 CriLJ 1758..................................4
Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) SCC 707...............................................7
Anamika (Smt.) v. State of M.P., ILR [2009] MP3003...................................................................6
Arvind Joshi v State (C.B.I.) 2009 (1) GLT 254.............................................................................4
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233...............................................................................6
Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh & Ors, (2007) 11 SCC 707.............................................................6
Ch. Narendra Reddy v. State of A.P., 2000 Cr LJ 4068 (AP).........................................................8
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446.................................7
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane1975 SCR (3) 967..................................................................3
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.................................................................2
Hajarimai v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 4253 (Raj.)................................................................8
Hansraj v. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257............................................................................9
Joytilal Chakraborty v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cri LJ 930................................................................4
Kamlesh Singh & Others vs. State of U.P., (2017) SCC OnLine All 854....................................10
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 5............................................3
M. Mohan v. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626........................................................................................6, 7
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628......................................5
Mahavir Kumar & Ors. v. State, III (2014) DMC 21......................................................................9
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330.............................................................4
Md. Irfan Habib v. State of West Bengal, 2017 1CALLT40 (HC).................................................9
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (63) ALR 313.........................................................................3
Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787...............................................................................6
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309.................................................................10

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | III

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2001 Supp (4) SCR 247................................................5

Ramji Lal v. State of Punjab, 2010 (4) RCR(Criminal) 924...........................................................3
Sambhaji Soma Rupnavar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2013(3) Bom CR(Cri)670......................6
Sarfaraj v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9154................................................................................8
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622........................................7
State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao,(2008) 15 SCC 582............................................................1
State of Karnataka v. Basavaraj and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3214.......................................................2
Suman (Smt.) v Arvind Kumar, 2007(2) WLN258.........................................................................7
Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, 200(2013) DLT638........................................................................3
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281..........................................................3
Swapan Biswas &Ors. v. The State of Bengal &Ors, MANU/WB/0207/2013..............................4
U. Suvetha v.  State,(2009) 6 SCC 757............................................................................................1
V. Shankaraiah v. State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad,
2002(2)APLJ (HC) 195.............................................................................................................10

BOOKS

DR. V NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT , (3 ed., Lexis Nexis, 2019).......................9
V L VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI CRIMINAL LAW (14 ed., Lexis Nexis, 2019)....................................5, 6

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Hematemisis, MUSC Medical University of South Carolina, available at

https://muschealth.org/medical-services/ddc/patients/symptoms-and-conditions/hematemesis.2
Law Commission of India, 243rd Report on Section 498A, IPC, Government of India (August
2012)............................................................................................................................................2
Lawrence Gomes, “Section 498A of IPC. It implication and viabilities in our present day daily
life and socio-economic system” 2004 Cr LJ Journal..................................................................3
Malimath Committee’s Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Vol. I, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India (March 2003)...............................................................................3

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | IV

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants have approached this Hon’ble High Court, in the matter of Rajkumar & Sushma
Mukherjee v. State of Maharashtra under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section374:

Appeals from convictions.

1. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extra

ordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme
Court.
2. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an
Additional Sessions Judge or on atrial held by any other Court in
which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years 2has
been passed against him or against any other person convicted at
the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
3. Save as otherwise provided in sub-Section(2),any person,-
a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant
Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second
class, or
b) sentenced under Section 325, or
c) In respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has
been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to
the Court of Session.

All of which is respectfully submitted

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |V

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

THE ACCUSED HAD NOT SUBJECTED THE DECEASED TO CRUELTY AND ARE
THEREBY, NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860.

ISSUE 2

THE ACCUSED HAVE ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED AND ARE
GUILTY UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | VI

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Harsha, the deceased, was married to Rajkumar Mukherjee. There were constant quarrels
between Harsha and her in-laws due to her short temperedness as well as her demands of
luxuries which the latter could not afford.
2. In September 2014, Harsha was diagnosed with Haematemesis. Agitated by her illness,
her in-laws told Harsha’s parents to take her back to their home, to which they refused.
However, Rajkumar, all this while fulfilled his duties of a caring husband. In October
2014, Harsha threatened her in-laws that she would upload a video on social media of her
in laws harassing her physically.
3. In December 2014, she went to Spain without taking permission of her in-laws. In
January 2015, Harsha and Rajkumar started residing in a separate flat, after an argument
between Rajkumar and his parents. In February 2015, when Shri Hemant Mukerjee, the
father of Rajkumar died, they moved back to live with Mrs. Sushma Mukerjee, the
mother of Rajkumar.
4. Rajkumar also called the parents of Harsha to resolve the disputes between Harsha and
her mother-in-law. Harsha’s father asked her to improve her relations with her in-laws
and accept her mistakes. Fed up of people pointing out her mistakes, in March 2015,
Harsha executed a stamp paper admitting her suicidal tendencies and accepting her past
mistakes. In April 2015, Mrs. Sushma wrote to the Superintendent of Police regarding the
suicidal tendencies of Harsha but the police refused to intervene.
5. Reconciliation talks were re-initiated with Harsha’s parents and she was warned by her
father and her brother that it would be her last chance to mend her ways. Rajkumar even
showed them a video recording of Harsha threatening her in-laws. Finally, on 28th April
2015, Harsha committed suicide by burning herself.
6. On 29th April 2015, Rajkumar and Sushma Mukherjee were arrested by the Police and
sent to judicial custody on 3rd May 2015 upon a complaint filed by Harsha’s father. In the
last week of May, they were granted bail by the Sessions and District Judge, Nagpur on
the basis of the stamp paper and video recording. The court held that her reason of
committing suicide could be because her brother and father did not appreciate her

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |

VII
 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

behavior with her husband and in-laws, and told her that they would not support her.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. THE ACCUSED HAD NOT SUBJECTED THE DECEASED TO CRUELTY AND

ARE THEREBY, NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused had not inflicted any
cruelty upon the deceased during her lifetime so as to compel her to commit suicide. There was
no willful act of harassment which might have caused serious injuries of life and limb on the
deceased. Furthermore, there was no cruelty committed by either the deceased or her in-laws. In
fact, the accused treated the deceased with care and affection. Both the husband as well as the in-
laws of the deceased was worried about the health of the deceased. They were also disturbed due
to the constant suicidal threats of the deceased. The deceased had also admitted to her mistakes
and suicidal tendencies in the stamp paper. Thus, in the absence of any instance of
harassment/cruelty, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 498, IPC.

2. THE ACCUSED HAVE ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED AND

ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused did not abet the suicide
of the deceased and should not be punished with imprisonment. The accused has not abetted
the suicide of the deceased as none of the acts done by him count as abetment as defined under
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no such conduct which would have proximate
link between the act of appellant and act of suicide. Also, the cause/reason of suicide is not
clear. Further, presumption under Section 113A cannot be raised as there is no cruelty inflicted
upon the deceased. There has also not been any cruelty inflicted upon the deceased in terms of
the demand of dowry. Hence, the accused has not abetted the deceased’s suicide.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |

VIII
 PLEADINGS

I. THE ACCUSED HAD NOT SUBJECTED THE DECEASED TO CRUELTY

AND ARE THEREBY, NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the an offence of “cruelty” under
Section 498A, IPC requires the following elements to be proved- (a) the woman 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 woman or by the relative of
her husband. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of U.
Suvetha v. State.1

2. In the present case, Rajkumar Mukerjee (hereinafter, “A1”) and Sushma Mukerjee
(hereinafter, “A2”) are not guilty for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code2 (hereinafter, “IPC”) because there was no wilful conduct of such nature as is likely
to drive the deceased to commit suicide [A]; and such cruelty was not subjected by either
her husband or any relative of her husband [B].

A. THERE WAS NO WILFUL CONDUCT OF SUCH NATURE AS IS LIKELY TO DRIVE THE

DECEASED TO COMMIT SUICIDE

3. The elements which need to be proved for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC have
been explained in the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao.3In this case, the
Supreme Court has held that harassment simpliciter is not “cruelty” and it is only when
harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related
to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc. that it amounts to “cruelty”
punishable under Section 498-A IPC.4

1
U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757.
2
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 498A [hereinafter, IPC]
3
State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582.
4
Ibid; Law Commission of India, 243rd Report on § 498A, IPC, Government of India (August 2012).
 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

4. In the recent case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has held that
proof of the wilful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, is the sine qua non for
entering a finding of cruelty against the accused person.5

5. In the present case, A1 is not responsible for any such harassment as mentioned in the
act. A1 had taken due care thereby fulfilling his responsibility. All reasonable care of the
deceased’s health was taken by A1 when A1’s family was notified that the deceased was
suffering from ‘Haematemesis’.6 Regardless of the frequent quarrels that the deceased
had engaged in with A1, he supported her constantly, even if it meant clashing with his
own parents.7

6. In the incident when the deceased travelled to Spain, A1 took the brunt from his parents
and they indicated their disappointment with him.8 The fact that A1 had defied his parents
in order to stay in a flat with the deceased separately further affirms his solidarity with
her and his caring behavior as a prudent husband.9

7. Further, in the absence of any untoward incident of cruelty, it cannot be said on

theoretical assumptions that such incidents were present. 10When A1 felt that the
circumstances were beyond his control, although exasperated, he still made efforts for
reconciliation by immediately informing the deceased’s parents to visit the matrimonial
home and counsel their daughter.11

8. There is not a single instance where the deceased was harassed, either physically or
mentally. Therefore, no particular instance of either mental or physical cruelty can be

5
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433.
6
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 2; Hematemisis, MUSC Medical University of South Carolina, available at
https://muschealth.org/medical-services/ddc/patients/symptoms-and-conditions/hematemesis
7
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 4.
8
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 3.
9
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 4.
10
State of Karnataka v. Basavaraj and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3214.
11
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 4.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |2

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

shown. Thus, clearly there was no intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased
to commit suicide.12

9. Based on the aforementioned submissions, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble

court that the accused have not committed any wilful act so as to drive the deceased to
commit suicide.

B. THERE WAS NO CRUELTY SUBJECTED UPON THE DECEASED BY EITHER HER HUSBAND
OR ANY RELATIVE OF HER HUSBAND

10. In Dr. N. G. Dastanev. Mrs. S. Dastane, it was held that “the enquiry has to be whether
the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in mind of the Petitioner
a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the
respondents.”13 In addition, in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme
Court has condemned instances where the complaints are not bona fide and have been
filed with oblique motive.14 It observed that Section 498A of the IPC is intended to be
used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon.15

11. It is humbly submitted that quarrels are a part of day to day life and are an inevitable
consequence of marriage.16 It has been held by the court in Manju Ram Kalitav. State of
Assam that petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty. 17 Furthermore, in Swapan Biswas
&Ors. v. The State of Bengal & Ors, it was held that if the deceased was sentimental and
hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance and discord and lacked in adjustment capacity,
situations of quarrel might irk his/her sentiments but it shall not attract grounds for
abetment/instigatory statements.18

12
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 5; Ramji Lal v. State of Punjab, 2010 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 924.
13
Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane1975 SCR (3) 967.
14
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281.
15
Ibid; Lawrence Gomes, Ҥ 498A of IPC. It implication and viabilities in our present day daily life and socio-
economic system” 2004 Cr LJ Journal; Malimath Committee’s Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Vol. I,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (March 2003).
16
Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, 200(2013) DLT638; Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (63) ALR 313.
17
Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330.
18
Swapan Biswas & Ors. v. The State of Bengal & Ors, MANU/WB/0207/2013.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |3

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

12. In the present case, the conduct of A1 and A2 in no way endangered the physical and
mental health of the deceased. As established earlier, A1 treated the deceased with all the
love and affection which a wife deserves, thus, proving that there was no act which can
be said to be cruel or which has harassed the deceased.19

13. Even though there were frequent quarrels that used to happen between the deceased and
her in-laws, there is no evidence on record which proves that they used to subject her to
harassment or cruelty such as causing grave injury or danger to her life and limb. 20
Although a lot of quarrels used to happen between the deceased and her in-laws because
she was hyper-sensitive and short-tempered, it does not mean that the appellant or her in-
laws inflicted any sort of harassment on the deceased.21

14. Furthermore, in Joytilal Chakrabortyv. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court has held that
had there been any torture either by the appellant or by other family members the
deceased should have either lodged protest or complaint before the police or before any
other authority for vindicating her rights.22 In the present case, there is no convincing
evidence to establish that the deceased during her life time had ever complained
regarding the alleged mistreatment by the respondent. Hence, allegations of cruelty on the
deceased made against A1 and A2 are baseless and unjustified.

15. In fact, the deceased herself admitted to all her mistakes as well as suicidal tendencies in
the stamp paper.23 The deceased was fed up of people pointing out her mistakes and in
order to put an end to the same, she affected the stamp paper.

16. Her in-laws were even forced to resort to help from the police as they were worried about
the deceased’s suicidal tendencies and disturbed from her constant harassing tactics. 24

19
Memorial, Issue 1(A).
20
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2.
21
Arvind Joshi v State (C.B.I.) 2009 (1) GLT 254; Ajit Kumar Manna and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal 2016
CriLJ 1758.
22
Joytilal Chakraborty v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cri LJ 930.
23
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2.
24
Fact Sheet, Pg. 3.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |4

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

They also initiated reconciliation with her parental relatives to restore peace of the
family.25 In this way, all efforts were taken by the accused to reconcile with the deceased.

17. Therefore, considering the aforementioned facts and principles and in the absence of any
convincing corresponding evidence, it is humbly submitted that no cruelty can be inferred
and A1 and A2 cannot be held guilty of any cruelty under Section 498A, IPC.

II. THE ACCUSED HAVE NOT ABETTED THE SUICIDE OF THE DECEASED
AND ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860

18. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that A1 and A2 did not abet the suicide
of the deceased, and hence, should not be punished with imprisonment. This is because
suicide was not instigated or abetted by the accused [A], presumption under S. 113A of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, “IEA”) cannot be raised [B], and allegations
of demand of dowry are not sustainable [C].

A. SUICIDE WAS NOT INSTIGATED OR ABETTED BY THE ACCUSED

19. It is respectfully submitted that a person is said to abet the doing of a thing by instigating
the doing of that act.26Abetment contemplated in Section 306 must conform to the
definition given in Section 107, IPC.27A person can be said to instigate another when he
incites or otherwise encourages another, directly or indirectly, to commit suicide. 28 The
word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward or provoke, incite, urge or encourage to
do an act.29

20. In the present case, there is no Incitement or abetment because there is no proximate link
between act of appellant and act of suicide [i], and the cause/reason of suicide is not clear
[ii].

25
Fact Sheet, Pg. 3.
26
Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2001 Supp. (4) SCR 247; V L VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI CRIMINAL LAW (14
ed., Lexis Nexis, 2019) [hereinafter, PILLAI ].
27
Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628.
28
Asha Shukla v. State of U.P. 2002 CriLJ 2233; Anamika (Smt.) v. State of M.P., ILR [2009] MP3003.
29
Parimal Chatterji v. Emperor 140 Ind. Cas.787.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |5

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

i. There is no proximate link

21. In M. Mohan v. State,30 the Supreme Court held that there should be a live or a proximate
link between the act of the appellant and the act of committing suicide. Absence if it
cannot make the accused liable for instigating in the suicide. 31 Furthermore, in Bhagwan
Das v. Kartar Singh &Ors,32it has been held that disputes and discords in the matrimonial
home cannot by themselves and without something more attract Section 306.

22. In the present case, there are no instances where the accused has tried to incite the
deceased, but on the contrary the threats related to posting of video on social media and
the audio recording of the deceased show that the deceased was instigating the accused
and her in-laws.33

23. Furthermore, there was no proximate link between the act of the appellant and the act of
suicide by the deceased. It is evident as the husband was the one who supported her when
she was diagnosed with “Haematemesis”,34held reconciliation talks with the deceased
family,35 and supported her decision to go to Spain.36 He even agreed to stay separately
from his parents for his wife which indicates his love towards her.37

24. Even her in-laws wanted the deceased to take permission before going to Spain for the
mere reason that they were concerned about her health. However, there were several
disagreements between A2 and the deceased due to the impulsive behavior of the latter.
Even though such petty quarrels exist in households and are a part of the marriage, 38 and
also existed in the relation of the A1, A2 and the deceased, there is no evidence that any
instigation was to done to make the deceased commit suicide.

30
M. Mohan v. State, 2011 (3) SCC 626; PILLAI, Supra note 26.
31
Ibid; Sambhaji Soma Rupnavar v. The State of Maharashtra, 2013(3) Bom CR (Cri)670.
32
Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh & Ors, (2007) 11 SCC 707.
33
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 3.
34
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 2.
35
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 3.
36
Ibid.
37
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 4.
38
Suman (Smt.) v Arvind Kumar, 2007(2) WLN258.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |6

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

25. Thus, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is no proof of the direct
or indirect acts of the accused which led to the suicide of the deceased. Therefore, mere
allegation of harassment by the father of the deceased without a positive action proximate
action which compelled the deceased to commit suicide, would not be sustainable under
Section 306 of IPC.39 Thus, A1 and A2 cannot be held guilty under Section 306.

ii. The reason of the deceased’s action of committing suicide is not

certain

26. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,40the Supreme Court observed that
when a woman of sensitive nature becomes tired of her life as a result of the actions of
her family, she develops a spirit of revenge and tries to destroy those who have made her
life worthless, even to the point of committing suicide, with the belief that the root cause
of her malady is also destroyed.

27. In the present case, the cause of suicide is not clear. One reason of suicide could be due to
the mental anguish of the deceased which was caused due to her hypersensitive and short
tempered nature.41 She was exhausted from her constant conflicts with her in-laws,
parents, and brother, which resulted in distancing herself from them.42 As a result, her
suicide might be attributed to her feelings of isolation and revenge against her in-laws.

28. Another reason of suicide could be due to the fact that the father and brother of deceased
did not appreciate her behavior towards her in-laws and asked her to mend her ways.43
The session’s court weighed in on the possibility that the latter was the reason of the
deceased's suicide.44 This implies that the evidences are not conclusive and cannot be
relied upon.45

39
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446; Supra note 30.
40
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West
Bengal, (2010) SCC 707.
41
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶5.
42
Ibid.
43
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 4.
44
Fact Sheet, Pg. 3, ¶ 8.
45
Hajarimai v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr LJ 4253 (Raj.).

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |7

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

29. Therefore, although the deceased committed suicide, it is submitted that there is no fact
or evidence on record to show that any kind of cruelty was meted out to the deceased by
the appellant.46

30. Although it has been proved above that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty, even if
in arguendo we assume that cruelty was done, presumption to instigate suicide cannot be
drawn from the mere fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. 47Based on these
factors, it is humbly submitted that the suicide of the deceased was not abetted by A1 and
A2.

B. PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113A OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1873 CANNOT BE

RAISED.

31. As per Section 113A of the IEA, suicide would amount to have been abetted by the
accused or any relative of the accused if it is proved that the deceased was subjected to
cruelty on the part of the accused.48 As stated above, no cruelty or harassment had been
inflicted on the deceased by the accused or his relatives. In addition, as has already been
established, a high degree of care and support was extended by A1 towards his wife, the
deceased, which further proves that neither intention nor action on part of the accused can
be mistaken to be even sub-strata of cruelty.49

32. The offences under Section 498A, IPC and under Section 306, IPC are two independent
offences.50 In order to link the two offences with the aid of Section 113A of the IEA,
some extra circumstances must be proved; it has to be also proved that the cruelty meted
out induced the victim to commit suicide.51

33. In the present case, even though the deceased was hyper sensitive and quarrelsome, her
husband and in-laws were caring towards her. In fact, they were worried about her Spain

46
Ch. Narendra Reddy v. State of A.P., 2000 Cr LJ 4068 (AP).
47
Sarfaraj v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9154.
48
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, [hereinafter, IEA] § 113A.
49
Fact Sheet, Pg. 1, ¶ 1.
50
Md. Irfan Habib v. State of West Bengal, 2017 1CALLT40 (HC).
51
Ibid.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |8

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

trip as she was not well in terms of heath. Even the husband supported her in her choices.
This shows that the essentials are not met and thus, presumption under 113A cannot be
enforced.

34. If a women commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage, there is usually a
presumption raised that she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband and in laws. 52
However, it has been held in the case Mahavir Kumar &Ors vs. State that in such an
instance the court is required to look into other circumstances of the case which includes
the nature of cruelty as likely to drive a women to commit suicide. 53 As stated above, no
cruelty or harassment on part of the A1 or A2 has been done. So there arises no question
of the nature of cruelty that the appellant inflicted upon the deceased.

35. In Hansraj v. State of Haryana,54it was stated that even if the ingredients of 113A are
established, no automatic presumption will be held if there is no conclusive evidence to
support the infliction of cruelty and harassment on the deceased in the absence of direct
evidence to prove liability.

36. In the present case, no direct evidence has been proved and therefore, the presumption
made by the session court under Section 113A is erroneous, because Section 113A of
IEA only comes into operation because of S. 306, not otherwise.55

37. Hence, the presumption under Section 113A of the IEA cannot be applied in the present
case considering the circumstances and other factors involved.

52
EIA, Supra note 48, 1872; DR. V NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, (3 ed., Lexis Nexis, 2019).
[hereinafter, RAO ]
53
Mahavir Kumar & Ors. v. State, III (2014) DMC 21.
54
Hansraj vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257; RAO, Supra note 52.
55
V. Shankaraiah vs. State of A.P. Through Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad, 2002(2) APLJ (HC) 195.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page |9

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

C. ALLEGATIONS OF DEMAND OF DOWRY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE

38. In order to constitute a death as a dowry death, it is pertinent to prove that the deceased
was subjected to cruelty immediately before the death. 56 In addition, such cruelty or
harassment must be in connection to the demand of Dowry.57

39. In the present case, there was no demand of dowry and as stated above, the deceased was
not subjected to cruelty or harassment either from the husband or from the in-laws. In
fact, the father and the brother of the deceased themselves admitted to their daughter
making mistakes and even asked her to make peace with her in-laws.58

40. In addition, the deceased has itself admitted her mistakes and suicidal tendencies before
the Notary.59 Hence, the allegation that the deceased committed suicide because of the
accused’s demand for dowry is mala fide and therefore, not sustainable.

41. Based on the aforementioned submissions, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble
court that the accused are not liable for abetment to suicide and are therefore, not guilty
under Section 306, IPC.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:

56
IPC, Supra note 2, §304 B; Kamlesh Singh & Others vs. State of U.P., (2017) SCC OnLine All 854.
57
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309.
58
Fact Sheet, Pg. 2, ¶ 5.
59
Ibid.

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | 10

 CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ASSESSMENT

1. DECLARE, that the accused had not subjected the deceased to cruelty and are thereby,
not guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code;
2. DECLARE, that the accused had not abetted the suicide of the deceased and are not
guilty under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code;

AND/OR
Pass any other order that this Honorable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity
and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

-WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS P a g e | 11