TC – SM05

JEMTEC MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDORA

FILED UNDER ART. 134 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDORA

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE MATTER OF

STATE OF INDORA AND ANUPRIYA ………………..APPELLANT

VS.

NILESH AND OTHERS…………………………..RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO PARTICULARS PG.NO

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction. 5

4. Statement of Facts. 6,7

5. Issues Raised 8

6. Summary of Arguments

7. Pleadings /Arguments Advanced

8. Prayer

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVIATION WORD

1. IPC Indora Penal Code

2. Acc. Accommodation

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
3. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
6. Constitution of India

CASES REFERRED

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Bare Act of Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Textbook on Indian Penal Code, K.D Gaur, Seventh Edition
3. Bare Act of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

WEBSITES
1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com

4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Nilesh (32) married Anupriya (30) according to Hindu customs on 17 December 2013
after Nilesh took over his father’s business. As Anupriya’s family was prosperous
there was no problem regarding dowry and they had a son named Rajat after 2 years
of marriage.

2. After some time, Nilesh started suffering losses in business due to which he borrowed
money from the market. That being not enough he requested money from Anupriya to
which she agreed and transferred 5 lacs to Nilesh’s account. But Nilesh constantly
misbehaved and abused Anupriya to bring more money and even threatened to kill her
if she did not.

3. Nilesh, one day used criminal force on Anupriya to the extent which got her admitted
to the hospital with fatal injuries. An FIR No. 667 of 2016 was registered under
sections 498A, 304B, 326 of the IPC, 1860, against Nilesh by the family members of
Anupriya. Nilesh was arrested by police and her parents took Anupriya to the
maternal home. But due to assurance of good behaviour given by the parents of
Nilesh, Anupriya's family withdrew the case. Anupriya agreed to go with Nilesh on
the condition of apologizing and not repeating it in the future and Nilesh's parents also
promised to protect Anupriya.

4. After some time, the behaviour of Nilesh and his parents changed again. Anupriya,
conscious of her position and upset from Nilesh misbehaving with her, filed an
application under the Domestic Violence Act, demanding separate acc. And
maintenance. The Court ordered in favour of Anupriya and instructed Nilesh to
provide separate accommodation in the same home to Ms. Anupriya and a reasonable
amount to be paid by Nilesh in the form of compensation and appoint a Protection
Officer.

5. One-day Anupriya saw Nilesh in a compromising position with another woman and
which made her extremely upset and she tried to hang herself. Nilesh saw the suicide
note that she wrote before attempting suicide where she blamed her husband Nilesh,
resulting which, Nilesh started beating Anupriya brutally and took the suicide note
under his control, and started waiting for a favourable situation. After this incident,
Anupriya filed a complaint about Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act on the
ground of cruelty and maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

6. This was the height of mental trauma for Nilesh as he was already in the mood for
revenge. He searched for the suicide note Anupriya and that was missing, this made
Nilesh very angry. Nilesh walked in anger toward Anupriya and saw that she was
talking to someone on phone. The very next day Nilesh checked her phone and he

6
 found that the call history was deleted. This made Nilesh more suspicious and he
started using physical force against Anupriya and she became unconscious.
7. Nilesh however thinking he killed Anupriya started hanging her with a Rope to
convert his deed into Suicide to escape and run away. Just after a few seconds one of
their neighbours, Mr. Suresh saw her hanging from the window and ran toward
Anupriya to save her. He took Anupriya to the Hospital and informed her parents. As
a result, the Police came to take her statement. She told them about the excesses and
physical assault by Nilesh and her in-laws.

8. After taking Anupriya's statement, the police also took statements of Nilesh and his
parents and then started their investigation. After the investigation was completed, the
police submitted the report to the trial court, in which the police considered Nilesh
and his parents accused in the relevant sections of IPC i.e., U/S 307,306,498A, 326,
201, 503 read with 34 & U/S 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court combined
the previous cases along with this and ordered against Nilesh U/S 307,306,498A/34,
326, 201, 503 of Indora Penal Code awarded rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and
compensation of Rupees 10 lakhs. The mother-in-law of Anupriya was punished U/S
498A, 326, 201, 503/34 for one year and the father-in-law was given the punishment
of three years.

9. State on the behalf of Anupriya filed an appeal before the High Court pleading to life
imprisonment for Nilesh and imprisonment for 7 years for Smt. Vimla (Mother of
Nilesh) and for 10 years for Mr. Roshan (Father of Nilesh). Nilesh also filed an appeal
against the conviction. The High Court reduced the punishment of Mr. Nilesh from 7
years to 4 years and acquitted his mother and father on the ground that the
circumstances are not conclusive as the chain of circumstances is not complete to
unerringly point to the guilt of the accused.

10. The State on the behalf of Anupriya filed an appeal against all the three accused
setting aside the acquittal of the mother, and father. It was also prayed that Nilesh is
awarded maximum imprisonment with a fine as also exemplary cost throughout. The
appellants have requested that accused Nilesh should be awarded imprisonment for
life and his father and mother for seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Domestic
violence is deprecated and the police should be asked why no charges were framed.

7
ISSUES RAISED