Memorial for Appellant

TEAM CODE :J

THE SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2019

4TH JAN,2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VIJAYGARH

Criminal Appeal

Appeal under section of the code of criminal procedure 1973

Revision Appeal

Appeal under section of code of criminal procedure1973

MR.PURUSH,

MR.AHANKAR,MRS.AGYANI,MR.LOBH,MR.KRODH,MISS.VISHKANYA………………

…………………………(APPELLANT)

V.

STATE OF VIJAYGARH………………………………………(RESPONDENT)

Most Respectfully Submitted Before The Hon’ble Chief Justice and other judges of high court

of vijaygarh

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF ON APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUE
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED
8. PRAYER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &:- And

2. AIR:- All India Report

3. Edn:- Edition

4. Hon’ble:- Honorable

5. HC:- High Court

6. Ltd:- Limited

7. P:- Page

8. SC:- Supreme Court

9. SCC:- Supreme Court Cases

10. SCR:- Supreme Court Reports

11. Sec:- Section

12. V.:- Versus

13. Vol:- Volume

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSIL FOR THE APPELLANTS HEREBY HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS

HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 380 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. THE APPELLANTS WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT

THAT THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Narri, daughter of Pitamah was married to Purush, a police constable on 24 th November,

1982. After the marriage, Naari shifted to her new home where her husband lived with
 his father (Ahankar), mother (Agyani), brothers (Lobh and Krodh) and his sister

(Vishkanya).

2. Soon after the marriage Naari realized that her in-laws were disappointed by the low

dowry given in marriage. They also thought that Naari was a poor match for their police

constable son.

3. Purush proved to be a heartless husband who often indulged in rebuking and beating

Naari for passing family secrets to her parents.

4. Naari visited her parents whenever she got an opportunity and each time she narrated the

incident of her humiliation, ill-treatment and beatings. After one of her visits Pitamah

accompanied her to her new home and got an assurance from Ahankar that in future the

family would take special care of her sensitive nature.

5. For about 2 months, Pitamah received no information about his daughter. Concerned

about Naari’s welfare, pitamah sent his two younger daughters to the house of Purush.

6. On 13th September, 1983, Pitamah received intimation from a neighbor of Purush that

Naari has received burn injuries and was lying in a critical condition at SLC hospital.

Before Pitamah could reach the hospital Naari succumbed to the ninety eight percent

burn injuries.

7. Purush, Ahankar, Agyani, Lobh, Krodh and Vishkanya were arrested and put on trial for

an offence under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. All the six accused

pleaded not guilty to the charge.

8. Agyani, in her statement under Section 313, of the Cr.PC, 1973 told that while cooking

food on kerosene stove the deceased caught fire accidentally. However neither of the

accused had any sign of fire injuries in their bodies.

 9. The prosecution mainly relies on the oral testimony of Pitamah and the 2 sisters about the

post marriage harassment of Naari.

10. The trial court convicted all the six accused under Section306 and 498A of IPC and each

of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
 1. .That in the view of no clear proof of suicide by Naari, a conviction under section 306 is

not sustainable

2. The evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is mearge.

3. That in the view of the primary burden of proof remaining on the prosecution, the

accused is entitled to acquittal in the event of the slightest doubt about the guilt

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO.1

1.That in the view of no clear proof of suicide by Naari, a conviction under section 306 is not

sustainable

In this fact there is no clear evidence against Purush and his family. So, as we know that benefit

of doubt come in favour of accused . Naari was accidentally burned in kitchen due to her

negligence while she was cooking food in kerosene stove. This statement is already given by

Agyani in front of magistrate under Section 313 of CrPC. Police did not find any direct or

indirect evidence against Purush and his family.

ISSUE NO.2

2. That the evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is mearge.

As we know that Pitamah (Naari’s father) already told Purush’s family that she was of sensitive

nature. So, it was Naari’s self realization that her in-laws were disappointed by her. While

Purush’s family took special care of her and there is no chance of abatement of suicide. Naari

had freedom to visit her parent’s home whenever she wanted. It is already clear in the light of the

fact that Purush’s family never restrict her to go and meet with her family members.

ISSUE NO.3

3. That in the view of the primary burden of proof remaining on the prosecution, the accused is

entitled to acquittal in the event of the slightest doubt about the guilt

That it is pertinent to mention here that it is prima responsibility of the prosecution to establish

the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not provide sufficient

evidence in the trial court in order to get the conviction of the accused. In this case, the burden of
proof lies on prosecution so, the appellant is entitled to acquittal because there is no evidence

either direct or indirect which establish the guilt U/S306. So, the accused is entitled to acquittal

in the event of the slightest doubt about the guilt.

ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE
NO. ISSUE 1 That in the view of no clear proof of suicide by Naari, a conviction under section

306 is not sustainable.

The plain language of Section 306 narrates as under:-

Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such

suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Before falling within the ambit of Section 306 appellants would like to draw the attention of the

Honorable Court to the word “abetment”.

It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by

any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the

propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the

abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or

instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this

constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions

rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the

offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306IPC. Contiguity,

continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant

indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.

Section 107IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:-

“107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First- Instigates any person

to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of

that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by an act or

illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation1- A person, who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a

material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or

procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that doing.

Explanation2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything

in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is

said to aid the doing of that act.” Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of

abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately

encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.”

The pith and purport of Section 306IPC has been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs.

State of Punjab, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder:-

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in

doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into

conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or

aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission

of offence under Section 306IPC.

So, in the view of the present fact the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 107 or 306 of

IPC. So the conviction under the impugned order are liable to be set aside because prosecution

fails to establish the essential element of the above mentioned sections of IPC. And, further it is

the basic elements for any crime to fall within their specific section, the prima duty of the
prosecution to first establish the elements of the crime in corroboration with the facts. If

prosecution is not able to prove the element then the accused are liable to be discharge of that

particular charge.

In this fact there is no clear evidence against Purush and his family under section 306 . Because

as we read in the statement of facts that Pitamah ( father of victim) himself accompanied Naari to

her new home and got assurance from Ahankar to take special care of her sensitive nature. Naari

had self-realization about the disappointment of her in-laws while no one spoke about this all to

Naari.

In this case of Purushothaman vs State of Kerala the Apex court held that:-

The court has considered the implication of the aforesaid explanation in the decision : as act

which merely amounts to aiding the commission of an offence is not abetment. The aiding must

showball into intentionally aiding the doing of a thing. When can you say that a person has

intentionally aided the commission of an offence? The commission of the act must be the

dominant intention of the person who aids it. Then only it can be said that he ‘intentionally’

aided it. If there is community of interest between the aiding person and the one who commits

offence, there is possibility to draw the inference that the dominant intention was to aid the doing

of that particular act. If the person only knows or has only the reason to believe that his act

would facilitate the commission of offence, it cannot be said that dominan intention was that.’

In the present contention regarding the appellant(Purush and Ors) abetting the suicide have no

grounds as the appellant had no motive for the abetment. The appellant’s father (Ahankar ) was a

responsible person who gave assurance to Ptamah when he visited the maternal house of Naari

with her regarding the sensitive nature of the victim.

The victim repeatedly visited her parents house and passed the secrets regarding her maternal

family.

She was of sensitive nature, where sensitive individuals are people who frequently feel too deep

or too much. That person can be extrovert or introvert. In Naari’s case her frequent visit to her

parents house shows her extrovert nature.

Before analyzing the evidence, at this juncture, for easy reference, Section 498A of IPC is

extracted as under:-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable

to fine.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

a) 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 of life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account

of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

It is seen from the above said provisions of Section 498A of IPC, the term “cruelty” has to be

narrated as under:-

1. A women must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty.

3. Cruelty must be of the nature of harassment of such woman, a) any willful conduct which is of

such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide and b) with a view to coercing

her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or is on account of failure to meet

such demand.

In the view of the facts there is no conduct on the part of the Appellants which shows that they

harassing the deceased and also there is no fulfillment of the essentials of the above mentioned

sections.

Further, to bring home the guilt of the Appellants for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, the

Prosecution should prove that there has been clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there

ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no

option.

Here it is requisite to elaborate the true meaning of mens rea:

It means guilty mind, mens rea is the mental element of a person’s intention to commit a crime;

or knowledge that one’s action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is

necessary elements of many crimes.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

The above well-known latin maxim describes the relation between mens rea and a crime in

general. Actus reus means a wrongful act. Mens rea means a wrongful intention. The maxim

means that an act does not itself make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. The mere
commission of a criminal act or violation of law is not enough to constitute a crime. These

generally require, in addition, some elements of wrongful intent or other fault. Mens rea is a

technical term. It means some blameworthy condition of the mind, the absence of which on any

particular occasion negatives the condition of crime. It is one of the essential ingredients of

criminal liability. A criminal offences is said to have been committed only when an act, which is

regarded as an offence in law is done voluntarily. Hence, an act becomes criminal only when

done with a guilty mind.

Hence, in the present fact court would observe that there is no circumstances prevail which

constitutes appellants guilty mind neither any act which fall them within the ambit of Section

306 IPC.

Issue no. 2:- That the evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is meager.

1. The statement given by Agyani U/S 313 Cr.P.C that while cooking food on kerosene stove

Naari caught fire accidentally based on this statement we can only presume that Agyani a

member of accused’s family only saw her/ knew about her (Naari) going to kitchen. After

that the facts regarding when the accident happened or where were the other member of

accused nothing is described in the facts so here the court may presume that during that

time at which Naari was in the kitchen the accused party members were out of the home

or were at some location where they can’t hear the screams of Naari.

MANJU RAM KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM (2009) 13 SCC330

In the reference to this case “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established

in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It

should be determined by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness
of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It

is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close

proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The Court further held that petty quarrels cannot be

termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC.

Similarly, the respondent (Naari) body had no marks of grave injury which would cause damage

to her life, limb or health other than that of the burned injuries. From the prospective of appellant

there was no willful conduct of such nature which would harm her(Naari).

2. The participation of the appellants in abetment is only a imagination according to Pitamah

(Naari’s father). There was no evidence of any offensive act by the appellant. The

testimony shows that there was no demand of dowry. The trial court erred in convicting

the appellants when though father and sisters have initially not supported the case of the

prosecution in the light that their (Pitamah and two sisters) oral testimony was only about

the treatment of Naari. The deceased was admitted in the SLC hospital and she did not

implicate the accused till her death. The appellant(Purush and Ors) are not guilty of

offence punishable U/S 306 IPC there is no scope for convicting the appellants U/S498A

IPC.

Section 498A reads as follows:

“498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty –Whoever,

being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to

cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three years

and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means-

 (a) 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, limb or health (whether

mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable

security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such

demand.”

The appellant never demanded any property or valuable security in regard to the only evidence

provided by the prosecution. In the course of Naari’s return to her matrimonial house she was

provided with the special care according to her sensitive nature.

For about two months she never complained about anything in the context of any type of ill

treatment, dispute, or harassment with her family members. The presumption of Pitamah in

regard to the circumstance of death of naari has no bases as the prosecution only relies on the

oral statement given by the family of the deceased.

PAKAL NARAYAN SWAMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

In Pakal Narayan Swami case the Madhya Pradesh High court has explained the nature of the

circumstances contemplated by section 32 of Evidence Act thus:

The circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence and they

can only include the acts done when and where the death was caused. Thus a statement

merely suggesting motive for a crime cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is so

intimately connected with the transaction itself as to be a circumstance of the transaction.

 In the instant case evidences which has been led about the statements made by the

deceased’s father and sisters were not relevant to the suggested motive for the crime.

Issue no3:- That in the view of the primary burden of proof remaining on the prosecution, the

accused is entitled to acquittal in the event of the slightest doubt about the guilt.

That it is pertinent to mention here that it is prima responsibility of the prosecution to establish

the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not provide sufficient

evidence to prove that the appellants demanding any dowry or that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty on account of demand of dowry.

In reference to the case of BIBI PARWANA KHATOON VS. STATE OF BIHAR (2007) 6

SCC 792

The court held that the fact that the appellants in the case did not even reside at the place of

mishap. The nexus between the act of aiding someone and the intention of the abettor cannot be

established. There was no evidence to prove their charge beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,

the court acquitted the appellant and held that the court must guard against false implication of

the relatives.

In the similar circumstances appellants(Purush and Ors) were not present at the resident at the

place of mishap. There is no specific evidence regarding the incident and the prosecution has

failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of

incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-

wife with cruelty is not enough. The conviction of the appellants U/S 306 IPC merely on the
allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be

acquitted of the charge.

As in the case of Mangat Ram vs State of Haryana (2009) SCC696 :

The Honorable Supreme Court was of the view that though a presumption could be drawn, the

burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused U/S 498A

IPC is on the prosecution. The court held that the burden is on the prosecution to establish the

fact that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the suicide. In this instant case,

there is no evidence to show whether it was an accidental death whether the deceased had

committed suicide.

In Indian criminal justice system the accused has the right to speak freely and with impunity, as

the statement recorded is without oath, and the accused cannot render himself liable by giving

false answers.

For precisely this reason, the version of the accused in his statement should be accepted if it is

reasonable and accords with probabilities, unless the prosecution can prove beyond the

reasonable dout that it is false.

The Honorable Supreme Court had consider the rights of the accused enshrined U/S 313 of CrCP

Samsul Haque vs State of Assam (2019)SSC.

In this case the appellant was convicted of murder, and the conviction was upheld by the

Gauhati High Court. The Honorable Supreme Court, however, noted that only two questions

were put to the accused in his statement U/S 313 CrCP and called it perfunctory.
It further held that:

“The incriminating material is to be put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair chance to

defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem.”

The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the

accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is

intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused be questioned about the

matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by

the trial court on inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial.

Hence, the statement of appellant (Agyani) U/S 313 should be revisited in the present fact no

circumstances prevail which constitutes appellants guilty mind neither any act which fall them

within the ambit of Section 306 IPC. The appellant is liable to aquital.
PRAYER/RELIEF SOUGHT

For the foregoing reasons, the Applicants respectfully request this Honorable Court to adjudge

and declare that:

1. That in view of no clear proof of Suicide by Naari, a conviction under Section 306 is not

maintainable. Hence, it is prayed that the Honorable Court may pleased to acquit the

appellants in the interest of justice.

2. That there is no sufficient evidence which prove the guilt of the Appellant. Hence, it is

prayed that the Honorable Court may pleased to acquit the Appellant on the ground of

insufficient evidence.

3. That the prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond the reasonable

doubt. Hence, it is prayed that the Honorable Court may pleased to acquit the appellant on

the ground that prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond the

reasonable doubt.

4. That this Honorable Court may pass any other order or direction deems fit in the

interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1

1. That in the view of proof of suicide by Naari, a conviction under section 306 is sustainable.

After marriage whenever the respondent (Naari) used to visit her parent’s house she informed

about the harassment and beating done by the appellant (Purush and Anr) to her. The continuous

cruelty has been clearly visible in the actions of the accused (Purush and Anr). These

circumstances indicate the suffering of the victim.

ISSUE NO.2

2. That the evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is sufficient.

The deceased (Naari) visited her parents house because of the rebuking and beating as she each

time narrated the incident of her humiliation and ill-treatment and beatings.

The deceased (Naari) realized by the acts of her in-laws that they were disappointed by the low

dowry given in marriage by the victim’s family. The in-laws of the deceased (Naari) were also of
the opinion that she was a poor match for their police constable son. These were the reasons

which derived the mindset of the accused (Purush and Anr) to subject the victim (Naari) to

beating and harrasment.

ISSUE NO 3

3. That Burden of proof is on the accused being the appellant.

The appellant (Purush) and others were not able to fulfill the requirements of evidence to proof

their innocence in front of court. Also in the statement of Agyani U/S 313CrPC has shown that

she was present at the time of incident but their were no signs of burned injuries in her body.

This shows the malafide nature of the accused. The accused were unable to proof their innocence

as they are convicted by the trial court for the offence U/S 306 and 498A of IPC.

ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE
NO. ISSUE 1 That in the view of proof of suicide by Naari, a conviction under section 306 is

sustainable.

As offence of abetment for suicide is punishable offence under Section 306, IPC. Section 306

says as follows :

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also

be liable to fine.

Before proceeding within the ambit of Section 306 respondent would like to draw the attention

of the Honorable Court to the word “abetment”.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted here under:-

“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly. – Engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the

doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and

in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly. – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
 and is clearly made out against the appellant(Purush and Anr) as stated by the respondent

(Naari) during her visit to her parent’s house after her marriage and for that purpose presumption

under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised against the appellant. Section 113A The

Evidence Act reads thus:

“Section 113A Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.-When the question is

whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative

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”.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as

in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In reference with the case of K. PREMA S. RAO AND ANR VS. YADLA SRINIVASA RAO

AND ORS (2002)

The Honorable Supreme Court convicted the accused based on the harassment and cruelty he

subjected the deceased with under Section 498A,IPC. As a result of such cruel treatment the wife

was driven to commit suicide.

Thus the harassment offence of abetment of committing suicide punishable under Section 306,

IPC is clearly made out against accused and for that purpose presumption under Section 113A of

the Evidence Act can be raised against him.

The Honorable Supreme court has observed that to attract the applicability of Section 113-A of

the Evidence Act, 1872 three condition are required to be fulfilled :

1. The woman has committed suicide .

2. Such suicide has been committed suicide committed within a period of seven years from the

date of seven years from the date of her marriage.

3. The Charged-accused had subjected her to cruelty.

The bench stated that if all three elements are met, a presumption can be drawn against the

accused, and if he is unable to rebut the presumption with proof, he can be convicted.

The Honorable Supreme court has presumed the abetment of suicide in the above case.The

respondent (Naari) was subjected to rebuking and beating by her husband who being a police

officer proved to be heartless person. Within 9 months of marriage the dispute between the

accused family and the deceased increased to the extent that the respondent(Naari) was forced to

shear the maternal discords with her family(Pitamah). She was subjected to humiliation and ill-

treatment in the house where she sifted after marriage.

In the present case the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised

against the appellant (Purush) as the cruelty by which he treated the respondent was enough to

drive her away from the matrimonial house and seek refuse in her parents house. For about

2month from her last visit the deceased father received no information regarding the welfare of

her daughter.He received information regarding the deceased through the neighbor that his
daughter has received burn injuries. He also informed the deceased’s father that her is lying in a

critical condition at the SCL hospital.

Being the husband and of the deceased it was the duty of the appellant to inform the father of the

deceased about the critical condition his daughter. The appellant from the Prima faca tried to

hide the critical state of the deceased so that no proof can be secured by the relatives.

According to the oral testimony of the father and the younger sisters of the deceased she was met

with harassment. In the Section 498A the court may presume under Section 113A, The Indian

Evidence Act, as similarly in the matter of Gumansinh Lalo Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan Vs.

State of Gujrat the Honorable Supreme Court stated, “Most often the offence of subjecting the

married woman to cruelty is committed within the boundaries of the house which in itself

diminishes the chances of availability of any independent witness and even if an independent is

available whether he or she would be willing to be a witness in the case is also a big question

because normally no independent or unconnected person would prefer to become a witness for a

number of reasons. There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her

trauma with her parents, bothers and sisters and other such close relatives. The evidentiary value

of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected of being a relative of the

deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives from being produced as a witness though they

may be an interested witness.”

The bench stated that the Court must value the testimony of an interested witness and must use

extreme caution when considering their testimony. Any interested witness must be examined

with extreme care and caution.

The court used Section 4 of the Evidence Act’s meaning of “shall presume and held”.The above

definition of the words may pesume makes it clear that whenever the act provides that the court

may presume a fact , the said fact is to be regarded as proved, unless and until it is disproved”.

The respondent(Naari) was subjected to cruelty repeatedly which forced her out of matrimonial

home. The communication was halted for about 2 months after she was harassed and she was

burned.

ISSUE NO2:- That the evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is sufficient.

The deceased (Naari) realized that her in-laws were disappointed by the low dowry given in

marriage. The accused thought that the deceased (Naari) was a poor match for their police

constable son.

The deceased visited her parents house because of the rebuking and beating as she each time

narrated the incident of her humiliation and ill-treatment and beatings.

The deceased (Naari) had died under unnatural circumstances after receipt of burn injuries. She

had suffered ninety eight percent burns.

BHANJA PRAMANIK VS. THE STATE

In this case the appellants were found to perpetrate physical and mental torture upon the

deceased. The appellants were found guilty of assaulting the victim on her head and after causing

her death in such a fashion they hanged her. Therefore, the appellants were convicted under

Section 306IPC and 498A IPC and sentence there under stands confirmed accordingly.
In the same manner the deceased (Naari) was beaten from time to time and the cruelty resulted in

abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.

Agyani in her statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973 told that “While cooking food on

kerosene stove the deceased (Naari) caught fire accidentally.”

However, neither of the accused had any sign of fire injuries in their bodies. This shows their

mala fide intention.

The deceased succumbed to the ninety eight percent burn injuries before Pitamah (deceased’s

father) was informed by the neighbor. The accused family did not took initiative to inform the

family of the accused about the incident which of such grievous nature which resulted in the

death of the respondent.

In reference to the case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2004

The accused was charged under Section 306 IPC. He was further convicted under Section 498-A

I.P.C.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. JAISWAL 1993

A woman committed suicide by hanging herself after being mistreated and abused by her

husband, being subject to complaints about her dowry and held responsible for the death of her

father-in-law because of her “evil luck” by her in-laws, and being subjected to other mental

torture.

In an action against the woman’s husband and mother-in-law, the lower court had found

insufficient evidence of systematic cruelty or physical or mental torture to sustain a conviction

under 498A of IPC, which provides that a relative of a woman that subjects that woman to

cruelty may be imprisoned for up to three years.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s holding, finding that the actions of the accused

husband and mother-in-law did qualify as “cruelty” because their willful conduct was of such

nature as was likely to commit the victim’s suicide.

Similarly, soon after the marriage the deceased (Naari) was rebuked and beaten by her accused

husband (Purush). She was thought to be a poor- match for a police constable(accused) by her

in-laws. The oral testimony of deceased’s father (Pitamah) and two sisters is sufficient to prove

the accused as guilty.

ISSUE NO 3:- That Burden of proof is on the accused.

Being the appellant it is their duty to prove their innocence as they are convicted Under Section

102 of Indian Evidence Act. As it says : On whom burden of proof lies.- The burden of proof in a

suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either

side.

But as per the incident the appellant (Purush) and others were not able to fulfill the requirements

of evidence to proof their innocence in front of court. Also in the statement of Agyani under

Section313CrPC has shown that she was present at the time of incident but their were no signs of

burned injuries in her body which would proof that she tried to save the deceased (Naari).
STATE OF HIMANCHAL PRADESH VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH 1993

The Supreme Court stated that the conviction could be held solely on the victim’s testimony

despite her age if it is believable and there is no evidence to discredit its trushtworthiness.

In the case of respondent (Naari) she has stated that she was subjected to continuous humiliation,

ill treatment and beatings. Also in the oral testimony of Pitamah and two sisters they have clearly

stated about the post marriage harassment of the deceased.

In the case of the Siri Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana the accused in defence, a positive stand

was taken by the accused that the deceased was preparing food the and she caught fire due to

bursting of a stove. By leading evidence in defence also tan attempt was made to prove that fact.

The Honorable High Court was of the view that the defence taken was only an afterthought.

Circumstances will not tell lies. “As per evidence of defence, alleged pieces of burst stove were

also not noticed by the Investigating Officer. If it was a case of fire by bursting of a stove, it

would naturally have caused damage to the other articles, lying in that room but nothing of that

sort was detected by the Investigating agency. The defence witnesses have made an attempt to

prove theory of theory stove bursting but in the view of evidence on record, their testimony is not

worthy of any credence. In the view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the appellant-

husband can be held guilty for abetment of commission of offence of suicide under Section 306

IPC. Abetment can be by performing a positive act or may be by conduct or omission. The
evidence, as existing on record, lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant had

harassed the deceased to such extent that she was forced to finish her life.”

Accordingly the facts of the case made it clear that the accused (Agyani) was present at the time

of incident as similarly in natural circumstances a person will try to save the victim of burning.

At the time of arrest the accused (Purush and Anr) had no sign of fire injures in their bodies, a

person saving anyone from fire will have the sings of injury. An average human body takes from

two to three hours to burn completely. The circumstance indicate clear case of abetment of

suicide.

In the reference to The Honorable Supreme Court has stated:

“The Court is required to address itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such

a witness; whether the evidence is reliable, trust-worthy and inspires the confidence of the Court.

Another important aspect of being considered while analyzing the evidence of interested witness

is whether the genesis of the crime unfolded by such evidence is probable or not. If the evidence

of any interested witness/relative on a careful scrutiny by the court is found to be consistent and

trust-worthy, free from infirmities or any embellishment that inspires the confidence of the

Court, there is no reason not to place reliance on the same.”

The respondent would like to draw the attention of Honorable Court to the circumstances of

victim death which unnatural cruel. The deceased realized the disappointment of her in-laws and

was subjected to rebuking and beating constantly.

Hence, there are circumstances prevailing which constitutes appellants guilty mind and the acts

which fall them within the ambit of Section 306 IPC.