ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021 TEAM CODE: 06

IN LEARNED SESSION COURT OF MOHALI

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE

Criminal Appeal No. ____of 2021

State of Punjab Prosecution

v.
Sunil kumar Defense-1
Ranjana Defense-2

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDGES OF

SESSION COURT OF MOHALI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION

1|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ IV

TABLE OF CASES............................................................................................................. V

STATEMENT OF JURUSDICTION ................................................................................. VI

STATEMENTS OF FACTS ............................................................................................... VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................... VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. - 1 -

CONTENTION-1:-THAT THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE

FOR DOWRY DEATH U/S. 304B OF IPC, 1860. ....................................................... - 1 -

CONTENTION-2:-THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND

PUNISHABLE FOR MURDER U/S 302 OF IPC, 1860 ............................................. - 4 -

CONTENTION-3:- THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED DID NOT HAVE ANY

COMMON CRIMINAL INTENTION ......................................................................... - 7 -

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ - 18 -

II | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. IPC Indian Penal Code

2. CrPC. Criminal Procedure Code

3. IEA Indian Evidence Act

4. DPA Dowry Prohibition Act

5. u/s Under Section

6. r/w Read With

7. & And

8. S. Section

9. v./vs. Versus

10. Nov. November

11. Apr. April

12. Jan. January

13. A-1 Accused-1 (Husband)

14. A-2 Accused-2 (Mother In Law)

15. SC Supreme Court

16. SCC Supreme Court Cases

17. AIR All India Reporter

18. b/w Between

19. Acc. According

20. U.P. Uttar Pradesh

21. Anr. Another

22. Ors. Others

23. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

III | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860)

2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974)
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872)
4. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961)

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian penal code, 35th edition (2017), 1982.
2. C.K. Takwani (Thakker), Indian Penal Code IPC, EBC Reader, 2014 Edition.
3. PSA Pillai, Criminal Law, Lexis Nexis, 13th Edition (2019), 2007.
4. M. Monir, The Law of Evidence, Universal Law Publishing, 10th edition (2015), 2006.

ONLINE DATABASES AND WEBSITES

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.legalserviceindia.com
3. www.livelaw.in
4. www.latestlaws.com
5. www.lawsisto.com
6. www.barandbench.com
7. www.lexforti.com

IV | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

TABLE OF CASES

S. NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION PG.NO.

Shivendra Raizada & Others Vs State of U.P. & (2019) 1 AII LJ

1. 1
Another 565
2. T. Aruntperunjothi Vs. State AIR 2006 SC 2475 2

3. Rosamma Kurian Vs State of Kerela 2014 CrLJ2666 (ker)88 2

4. State Vs. K. Sridhar 2000 CrLJ 382 3

(2003) 6 ACE 309
5. Hiralal Vs State 3
SC 316
6. Manohar Lal Vs State of Haryana 2014 (9) SCC 645 3
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs State Of
7. 2011 CrLJ 705 3
Maharashtra
2021 SCC Online
8. Naresh Kumar V. Kalawati 6
SC 260
(2009) 3 Gau LR
9. Kaushik Das V. State of Tripura 8
206: (2009) 3 AIR

V|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF JURUSDICTION

THE COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF

LEARNED SESSION COURT OF MOHALI UNDER THE VIRTUE OF SECTION 177 READ WITH

SECTION 209 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 states that

Ordinary place of inquiry and trial- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and
tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 states that

Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it. When
in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-

a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as the
case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this
Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been
made;
b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which
are to be produced in evidence;
d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

VI | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. Sunaina Roy and Sunil Kumar did their engineering in Computer Science from a renowned
college at Mohali. In 2005, they came close, during their 4th year at college. Sunil was a brilliant
student from a middle-class background but desired for a luxurious lifestyle, however, Sunaina
was a sober girl from a reasonably well-off family.
2. After introducing families in May 2012 they got married on 9th Nov. 2012 as per Hindu rites.
Sunaina moved to Sunil’s home with his parents, sister & grandmother, and started a life &
career along with him in Mohali. Differences occurred many times, mostly settled amicably.
3. Sunil’s desire for luxurious life saw the family in a near financial crisis. He time to time
demanded money from his in laws. In 2015, he asked his in laws for a loan of 50 lac rupees.
He got Rs. 20 lac, which he later refused to return.
4. Sunaina gave birth to a baby girl in 2016. Expenses increased, arguments occurred & fights
turned physical too. In drunken state, Sunil used to blame Sunaina for being from a family of
beggars. She got hurt and tried to end her life but was saved by her sister-in-law. Their relation
deteriorated and she remained distressed.
5. After the incident, the physician did prescribe her medicines & advised her to consult a
psychiatrist. She went to her parent’s home & told Sunil that she would never return. But her
parents convinced her to return to her in laws.
6. In Apr. 2018, 2nd baby, a boy was born to them which added the burden. Financial problems
disturbed Sunil, so he used to vent his frustration on Sunaina. This made her more agitated and
she started suffering from depression & mood swings.
7. On 4th Jan. 2019, neighbours saw Sunaina running out of the house with her dress on fire.
Her mother-in-law was running after her shouting that Sunaina was out of her mind to do
something like this. She collapsed on the road, and was taken and admitted to hospital with
90% burns. Doctors declared her unfit to record her statement immediately.
8. On the morning of 5th Jan. her condition improved briefly, and the police was called. On the
arrival of Mr. Sajjan Singh sub-Inspector of police, she tried to speak but she couldn’t. Then
she pointed her finger twice at her mother-in-law named Ranjna & Sunil and then died.
9. Police sent the body for post mortem and conducted house search, found kerosene canister.
Based on Sunaina’s dying declaration & home search, her mother-in-law & husband were
arrested and later sent to judicial custody by the court.
10. They were put to trial before Sessions Court, Mohali and were charged for the offence
punishable u/s 302, 304B, 498A, r/w 34 of IPC and S. 32 of IEA, 1872 was also mentioned.
VII | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE – 1

WHETHER BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH U/S 304 OF
IPC, 1860?

ISSUE – 2

WHETHER BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE FOR MURDER U/S 302 OF IPC,
1860?

ISSUE – 3

WHETHER BOTH THE ACCUSED HAD ANY COMMON CRIMINAL INTENT?

VIII | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION:-1 THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE FOR DOWRY
DEATH U/S 304B OF IPC, 1860

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that the accused had not demanded any
dowry in relation to marriage from in-laws. Instead, he demanded a loan which he couldn’t
refund due to ongoing financial problems. Also, the accused has never subjected the
deceased to cruelty related to dowry or otherwise. Deceased was an over-sensitive person
that is why se considered normal wear and tear of family as cruelty. Hence, conviction of the
accused for cruelty and dowry death u/s 498A and 304B of IPC, 1860 respectively, would be
wrong in the eyes of justice.

CONTENTION:-2 THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE FOR MURDER
U/S 302 OF IPC, 1860

S. 302 of IPC, 1860 says that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine. Accused has been prosecuted
wrongly under S. 302 of IPC, 1860. Accused has not committed murder of the deceased and
has been prosecuted just on the basis of presumptions and vague evidence. There has never
been any intention of accused or performance of any physical act by the accused to murder
the deceased. A person is innocent until proven guilty and prosecution is wrongful in
suspecting accused for the murder.

CONTENTION:-3 THAT THERE WAS NO COMMON CRIMINAL INTENTION

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that both the accused i.e. deceased’s husband
and her mother in-law had not demanded dowry and had no intention to subject the deceased
to cruelty or causing death to her.
Section 34 of IPC, 1860 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in
the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Both the accused are innocent but prosecuted on the basis of mere assumptions and unclear
and vague evidences. So, if there has no crime been committed then there is no liability,
hence, no joint liability. Hence, both the accused are not liable to be punished under S. 498A,
304B and 302 r/w S.34 of IPC, 1860.

IX | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION-1:-THAT THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE FOR

DOWRY DEATH U/S. 304B OF IPC, 1860.

S. 304B 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.
Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”1

1. Demand of Dowry Was Never Made.

Dowry is defined u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as Any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of the said parties.2
As stated in facts the accused asked for a loan of Rs. 50 lacs from his in-laws in 2015. Loan
does dot comes under the ambit of dowry. And the money demanded was not in connection
with the marriage. Hence, acc. to S. 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the money demanded
was not dowry. In the case of Shivendra Raizada & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6
December, 2018 it has been stated Rs. 80,000/- was demanded by the applicants for repairing
of clinic. He has contended that if any amount is demanded for certain purpose, it does not
come within the purview of dowry in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court. 3
Also, according to the facts it is evident the accused’s financial condition was never good. So,
it can be deduced that he was not in the condition to return the received Rs. 20 lacs.
2. Deceased has never been subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband or in-laws.

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), S.304B
2
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), S.2
3
(2019) 1 AII LJ 565

-1-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

A. S. 498A of IPC, 1860 states that- 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 wilful 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.4
B. It is very well stated in facts that deceased was from a reasonably well-off family. She never
lived in middle-class conditions. That is why she had problems in adjusting in accused’s
family. It is mentioned that earlier also she had disturbances with in-laws but they solved
it amicably.
Due to difficulty in adjustment, she was appearing as over sensitive. That is the reason she
tried to end her life by slitting her wrist on a simple remark of being called from the ‘family
of beggars’.
S. 95 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 says Act causing slight harm- Nothing is an offence
by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to
cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would
complain of such harm.
But she was saved by her sister in-law. This shows that her in-laws didn’t have any intent
of harassing her or taking her life.
All the problems occurring were normal wear and tear problems which normally all
families experience. Usual discord, family related trivial disputes can’t be cruelty.5
In case of T. Aruntperunjothi vs. State, it was held that, misunderstanding b/w accused
and the deceased would not automatically lead to conclusion that accused husband had
committed offence u/s 304B. law does not raise such presumption.6

4
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), S.498A
5
Rosamma Kurian vs State of Kerela 2014 CrLJ2666 (ker)88
6
AIR 2006 SC 2475
-2-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

When she went to her parental home and told A-1 that she would never return, but
later her parent convinced her to return. This shows that even her parents believed
that she was being over-sensitive and she had no harm from her in-laws.
In the case of State vs. K. Sridhar it was held that, where the prosecution relied only
on incident of unhappiness of deceased with her husband, it does not establish criminal
offence u/s 498A.7
In Apr. 2018 when deceased gave birth to a baby boy and financial burden increased
and A-1 became very disturbed and distressed and in turn used to vent out his
frustration on deceased. There is no clear mention of the fact that in what way A-1
used to vent out his frustration. Considering the fact that deceased was an over
sensitive person and had a past and present of poor mental condition, this can be
said that she took it heavily. There is no sign that A-1 was grievously cruel on her.
So, it can be said that accused had no intention of harming or harassing the deceased.
When there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had been suffering
from psychosis/mental disorder, it was held not safe to convict the accused under
S.498A of IPC,1860.8
In the case of Hiralal vs State, there was no definite evidence about ill- treatement of
the deceased at any time having immediate proximity to the date of death of deceased.
Therefore, a basic requirement of cruelty and harassment soon before the death to bring
application of s. 304B is absent.9
3. Since it is clear till now that no demand of dowry was made and the deceased was not
subjected to harassment or cruelty related to dowry or otherwise. Hence, the accused is not
liable to be punished under S.498A and S.304B of IPC, 1860.
In the case of Manohar lal vs state of Haryana, SC observed that prosecution is obliged
to prove that soon before the death occurrence there was cruelty or harassment to operate
S. 113B of IEA,1872.10
If ingredients of S. 304B of IPC, 1860 are not fulfilled, it cannot make S. 113B of IEA,
1872 operative.

7
2000 CrLJ 382
8
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs State Of Maharashtra, 2011 CrLJ 705
9
(2003) 6. ACE 309 p no. 316 (sc)
10
2014 (9) SCC 645
-3-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

CONTENTION-2:-THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED ARE NOT LIABLE AND PUNISHABLE

FOR MURDER U/S 302 OF IPC, 1860

Counsel humbly submits before the learned court that accused is not liable to be punished u/s
302 of IPC, 1860 for the murder of deceased.

S. 299 of IPC defines Culpable homicide as- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide.11

Murder is explained u/s 300 of IPC,1860 as- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or-
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits
such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.12

1. There was no intent to cause death or grievous hurt.

Before getting married the couple was in a relationship from 7 years (2005-2012), which
means they both had enough mutual understanding and love required for a relationship.
It has already been proved that deceased being from a reasonably well-off family was
unable to adjust in middle-class conditions. She had disturbances with in-laws but they
solved it amicably every time.
She was an over sensitive. When she tried to end her life by slitting her wrist on a simple
remark of being called from the ‘family of beggars’ she was saved by her sister in-law. If
they have had any criminal intent, they would have never tried saving her.

11
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) S. 299
12
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) S. 200
-4-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

This has also been stated above that when she went to her parental home and told A-1
that she would never return, but later her parent convinced her to return. This shows
that even her parents believed that she was being over-sensitive and her in-laws have
no intent to harm her.
2. There was no act done by accused to cause death or grievous hurt.
Factsheet is silent on the point that there was any physical act done by the accused to cause
death to the deceased.
Nowhere in the facts has been expressly said that A-1 was present at the time the deceased
was getting burnt. One cannot rely on assumption that accused has set the deceased on fire.
Finding a kerosene canister in the house doesn’t put accused under suspicion that he had
killed. There is a possibility that deceased put kerosene on herself and set herself on fire to
end her own life as she has earlier also done this.

a) At the death bed, the deceased when was unable to speak to provide any declaration, she
pointed finger twice towards both the accused. This can be treated as a dying declaration
which has been stated under S. 32 of IEA.
Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found,
etc., is relevant- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who
is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or
whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which
under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves
relevant facts in the following cases-
(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. Such
statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time
when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of
the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.13
The dying declaration by the deceased is inadmissible as she just pointed finger on the accused.
Fact sheet is silent on the point that doctor has certified her fitness to declare something.
as a matter of scientific fact, human body experience cognitive changes after a burn injury.
These changes include drowsiness, confusion, and disorientation and delirium and brief

13
Indian Evidence Act, 1872(1 of 1872), S.32
-5-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

psychotic reactions may also occur. Therefore, it can be possibly concluded that the deceased
was not in proper senses to declare something. This shows that one cannot completely rely
upon the fact that deceased was in senses on the morning of 5th jan.
Also, there is no clarity on the point about what questions were asked from her by the police.

Deceased had a history of ill-mental health. Earlier also, due to being over-sensitive she had
tried to end her life. She used to remain distressed, disturbed, agitated and suffered mood
swings. High are the chances that she had on her own set herself on fire.

In the case of Naresh Kumar v. Kalawati, Criminal, it was held that,

“If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its
veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create
a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and
manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore, much
shall depend on the facts of a case.”
In such facts and circumstances, considering that the statements of the deceased have
vacillated, the Court noticed that there is no evidence about the fitness of mind of the deceased
to make the dying declaration including the presence of the Doctor, the veracity and
truthfulness of the dying declaration remains suspect. Hence “it would not be safe to simply
reject the probable defense of suicide, to reverse the acquittal and convict the respondents.”14

14
2021 SCC Online SC 260
-6-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

CONTENTION-3:- THAT BOTH THE ACCUSED DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMON
CRIMINAL INTENTION

It is humbly submitted before the learned court that A-1 & A-2 had no intention to subject the
deceased to cruelty or causing death to her or harm her in any way. So, joint liability does not
arise.

Section 34 of Indian penal code, 1860 states that

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention- When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.15

Ingredients for the section-

1. A criminal act must be done by several persons.
2. A criminal act must be to furtherance the common intention of all.
3. There must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention.

There has no criminal act been done, there was no intention of anyone to commit a criminal
act also there was no participation of A-1 and A-2 in committing a criminal act. Hence,
none of the ingredient is fulfilled to show joint liability of A-1 and A-2

1. In the above stated facts and contentions it has been proved that A-1 had no intention of
hurting and being cruel to deceased and had not caused harm to her. Hence, if not harm has
been caused liability does not arises.
Fact sheet never has said about A-2 having any mal-intentions towards deceased rather
trivial homely disputes of deceased with in laws were amicably resolved. A-2 was never
cruel towards her and has never even kept any demand of dowry to her.
Thus, both A-1 and A-2 didn’t have any intent to be cruel or causing death and no act has
been done for the accomplishment of same by them. So, joint liability cannot arise.
2. Fact sheet hasn’t expressly said that at the time of the misfortunate incident of deceased
getting burnt A-1 was present at the moment. If he was not present there, how can he murder
the deceased? This would be a clear assumption to say that A-1 was present at the time and
has set the deceased on fire. A person cannot be convicted based on any assumptions.

15
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) S.34
-7-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

Also, at the time of deceased’s body was on fire and she was running out of the house A2
was running behind the deceased to help her and was crying and shouting that she was out
of her mind to do something like this. It was her reflex action that is no pretence effect
actions cannot be contemplated.
Merely because the accused-appellant was present at the time of occurrence, a valid
presumption cannot be made holding him responsible for the accident, meaning thereby
that he committed the offence under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code.16
3. The evidence of pointing finger that is the dying declaration cannot be considered
admissible or be sole reason for suspecting and convicting A1 and A2 as the deceased was
not in her proper senses to declare something. Fact sheet is silent on the point that doctor
has certified her fitness to declare something. Also, there is no clarity on the point about
what questions were asked from her by the police. Hence, pointing finger cannot be
considered as dying declaration and cannot be relied upon for conviction.

Hence, it is clear that A-1 and A-2 are innocent and cannot be convicted on the basis of mere
assumptions and unclear and vague evidences. So, if there has no crime been occurred then
there is no liability, hence, no joint liability.

16
Kaushik Das v. State of Tripura, (2009) 3 Gau LR 206: (2009) 3 AIR
-8-|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE
ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW
INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

PRAYER

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Counsels on behalf of the Defense humbly pray before the Learned Session Court of Mohali to
kindly adjudge and declare that:-

i. Accused A-1 and A-2 are not liable to be punished under S. 498A of IPC, 1860 for
subjecting the deceased to cruelty.
ii. Accused A-1 and A-2 are not liable to be punished under S. 304B of IPC, 1860 for
dowry death.
iii. Accused A-1 and A-2 are not liable to be punished under S. 302 of IPC, 1860 for
murdering the deceased.
iv. The accused be acquitted from the levied charges to ensure that innocent doesn’t
get punished, hence, securing justice for the innocent.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience, and for this act of kindness the Counsels on behalf of the Plaintiffs as in duty
bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

__________________________

Sd/-

Counsels for the Defense

- 18 - | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENSE