OPENING STATEMENTS FOR DEFENCE – SHALEEN BAREJA

May it please the Hon’ble court, I am T-32, the counsel for the 3 accused in the present case
of State of Northern Province v. Kishor and ors. Your Lordship, Before I proceed with
proving my client’s innocence in this case, I wish to draw the attention of this court to the
nature of the offences that the three accused have been charged with Section 304B (i.e.,
Dowry Death) & Section 498-A (i.e., Cruelty Against Women) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Your Lordship, the term ‘Dowry Death’ sparks off vivid imaginations in one’s head of a
woman being taunted and harassed for money and finally, hanged to death within the four
walls of her house. Not only this your lordship, but I also think that that feminist mindset
adopted by the Indian judiciary nowadays has set a strong belief that every unnatural or
untimely death of a married Indian woman is dowry death.
Furthermore, most of the cases pertaining to Section 498-A in the Indian Judiciary have
persecution instead of prosecution. The above two sections are cognizable, non-bailable, non-
compoundable, offences in India. The clear intention behind these sections is to fasten guilt
on the husband, or in-laws, though they might not, in fact, have caused the death or injury.
Under these sections, even if the allegation is false, there will be a trial and the husband is
considered guilty until proven innocent. The Supreme Court of India has termed this misuse
of the law “legal terrorism.”
Next in line, the defence will try to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of
the Indian Evidence Act of having caused a dowry death through cross examination of the
prosecution witnesses, if at all the court makes a presumption of guilt after the prosecution’s
cross examination.
 QUESTIONS FOR INVESTIGATING OFFICER (PW 3)

With the permission of Hon’ble Court, I would request the Court Master to call PW 3 Mr.
Sachin the Investigating Officer in this case.
Q1: Good Morning/ Afternoon officer, can you tell the court what is the rank you hold in the
police department right now?
Q2: Sir, Can you tell the court what is the ideal procedure of investigation that you follow in
every case? (to check the credibility of the witness)
Conditional Question: Sir, could you please tell the court that did you conduct a panchnama?
And who were the panch witnesses
Q3: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that when you reached the spot where the
deceased was lying unconscious what was she wearing?
Q4: Sir, can you please tell the court that whether you duly complied with all the procedures
of arrests while arresting my client, his parents?
Q5: Sir, then can you please also tell the court that who attested the memorandum of arrest?
Sir I put it to you that you that you that your entire investigation was biased, hasty and based
on irrelevant findings.
Sir I put to you that you planted the watchman “Shayam” as a witness in this case just to get
away with the process of investigation.
 QUESTIONS FOR THE WATCHMAN (PW 2)

With the permission of Hon’ble Court, I would request the Court Master to call PW 2 Shyam
Q1: Sir, is it true that on 20th January, 2019 at 4:45 AM you saw Roma (now deceased)
falling from the Northern Province Building?
Q2: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that at what distance were you from the
building when you saw the alleged offence?
Q3: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that when you saw the alleged offence was
there anyone else around the deceased while she was trying to fall from the building?
Q4: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that when you reached the spot where the
deceased was lying unconscious, what was she wearing?
Q5: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court whether the deceased fell on her face or fell
on her back from the building?
Q6: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that did you hear any kind of loud noises of
fighting from the deceased residence in the past?
 QUESTIONS FOR THE FATHER (PW 1)

With the permission of Hon’ble Court, I would request the Court Master to call PW 1 Mr.
Suraj (father of the deceased)
Q1: Sir, could you please tell the Hon’ble court that has my client specifically addressed any
kind of dowry demands to you?
Q2: Sir, have you at any point in time witnessed/ yourself seen my client inflicting cruelty on
your deceased daughter?
Q3: Sir did you try to/ report to the police authorities when alleged events of cruelty on your
daughter came to your knowledge?
Sir, I put it to you that all your allegations are false as there was no instance where my client
inflicted cruelty upon your deceased daughter.
Sir I put it to you that all your allegations against my client are just afterthoughts and hearsay
statements.
 CLOSING STATEMENTS FOR DEFENCE – SHALEEN BAREJA

Your honour, to speculate is one thing but to prove is completely another. The
learned prosecutor has vociferously tried to state stories in this court and frame
my clients for acts that they have no relation to. Yes there was a death, but the
prosecution has failed in proving that the reason behind the death were the
alleged dowry demands. It has been held in Narender Singh Arora Vs State
173(2010) that “ All suicides are unnatural deaths. Suicide is a complex
phenomenon. One, who commits suicide, is not alive to disclose as to what was
going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no
presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws’
house or at her parents’ house has to be because she was suffering harassment at
the hands of her husband or her in-laws.”
Next in line we have the case of State Vs. Dalbir Singh and Ors.,2022 wherein
the Dwarka District Court while acquitting the accused facing the same charges
held that the “If at all deceased was harassed or beaten by the accused persons
then the natural course for the complainant was to approach them or to their
relatives or make a police complaint regarding the same.” Furthermore, it must
be highlighted that the complainant failed in doing so and the court in
furtherance of the above rationale acquitted the accused in the case.
The Hon’ble court herein must also take notice that the prosecution witnesses
clearly lack credibility because the statements made by PW2 and PW3 about the
same fact contradict each other.
Also, the prosecution has clearly failed in proving the guilt of the accused with
respect to Section 498-A as PW-1 himself testified in his initial statement that
there was no specific demand of dowry made to him directly and neither did he
saw any kind of cruelty being inflicted upon her daughter himself. So therefore,
such vague, general and unsubstantiated allegations cannot be made foundation
for sustaining charge under Section 498-A IPC.
Your lordship, if this case is anything, it is a net with many holes, a chain with
broken links. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused
and the accused deserve to be acquitted of all charges.
Thank you for your time your honour. It was a privilege arguing before this
Hon’ble court