RGNUL

CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

COURT OF SESSIONS OF PATIALA

CRIMINAL CASE. NO. …/2017

[UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B & 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860]

State…………………………………………….…………………........Prosecution
v.
Madhur & ors……………………………….………………….………Defendants

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

SUBMITTED BY:
ROLL NO.: 131101
CRIMINAL LAW GROUP- II
IX SEMESTER

1

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 3-4

• INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... 5-7
• STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................... 8
• STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 9-10
• ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................... 11

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR OFFENCE

UNDER SECTION 498 A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 304 B OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

• SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. 12-13

• ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................. 14-21

1. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498 A OF

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR COMMITTING CRUELTY
AGAINST THE DECEASED.
2. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR THE ABETMENT
OF SUICIDE WITH COMMON INTENTION.
3. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 304 B OF
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR CAUSING THE DOWRY DEATH OF
THE DECEASED.

• PRAYER .....................................................................................................................22

2
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

1. A.I.R. All India Reporter

2. A.P. Andhra Pradesh High Court

3. C.G. Chhattisgarh High Court

4. Cri L.J. Criminal Law Journal

5. Cut L.T. Cuttack Law Times

6. Del. Delhi High Court

7. Ed. Edition

8. Hon’ble Honourable

9. Kar L.J. Karnataka Law Journal

10. Mad. Madras High Court

11. M.P. Madhya Pradesh High Court

12. M.P.L.J. Madhya Pradesh Law Journal

13. No. Number

14. Ori. Orissa High Court

15. P & H. Punjab and Haryana High Court

16. p. Page

17. P.L.R. Punjab Law Review

3

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

18. r/w Read with

19. Raj. Rajasthan High Court

20. S.C. Supreme Court

21. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

22. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

23. u/s Under Section

24. v. Versus

25. Vol. Volume

4
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

1. State of Karnataka v. Baleppa 1999 Cr. L.J. 3064 (Kant)

(DB)

2. Sunagalet L Hegde Smt. v, Laxminarayan 2003 Cr. L.J. 1418 (Kant.)

Anant Hegde & anor

3. Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand & ors 2003 Cr. L.J. (2759), Delhi

4. Arvind Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2007 IV Cr. LJ. 3741 (S.C)

5. State v. Subramanian 2006 (2) MLJ (Crl) 1001

6. Dr. Pravin Vaishya vs The State Of Madhya AIR 2012 SC 875

Pradesh

7. Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State AIR 2012 SC 875

8. Mahbub Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118

9. Bajirao Gondappa Chaugule v. The State Of Criminal Appeal No. 36 of

1995
Maharashtra
Decided On: 11.02.2005

10. Virendra Singh vs State Of M.P. Criminal Appeal No. 1316

of 2002
Decided On: 09.08.2010

11. Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2007 III Cr. L.J. 3262 (SC).

5

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

STATUTES:

v Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

v Indian Penal Code, 1860.
v Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED:

v KD Gaur, Criminal Law and Criminology (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2002,
New Delhi)

v R.K. Nelson, Indian Penal Code (9th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2003, New
Delhi)

v R.P.Kathuria, Law of Crimes and Criminology (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications, 2007,
Delhi)

v Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes (26th Edition, Bharat Law House, 2007, New Delhi)

v Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (31st Edition, Wadhwa & Company, 2006,
Nagpur)

v Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence (17th Edition, Butterworths,
2001, New Delhi)

v SP Tyagi, Law of Evidence (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications, 2008, Delhi)

v Woodroofe, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure (2nd Edition, Law Publishers

Pvt. Ltd., 2005, Allahabad)

v Vinod Nijhawan, Better Criminal Reference (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
2008, New Delhi)

6
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

v K D Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Material ( 6th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, 2012, Nagpur)

v M. Monir, The Law of Evidence ( 9th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. , 2013, New
Delhi)

INTERNET SOURCES:

v www.heinonline.org
v www.indiankanoon.org
v www.legaldictionary.com
v www.manupatra.com
v www.scconline.co.in
v www.vakilno1.com
v www.westlawindia.com

7

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Prosecution has invoked the jurisdiction the Hon’ble Court of Session under Section 177
read with Schedule 1 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

-I-
THE BACKGROUND

• Archita was married to Madhur in 2015 much against her personal wishes as she was in
love with Ashish whom she had befriended in college, but owing to family pressure she
complied with her parent’s desire. She was passing a mundane marital life in Patiala, with
constant taunts from her in-laws on her failure to bring adequate gifts at the time of her
marriage.
• They did not have any issues out of the marriage and she continued to secretly meet
Ashish. On one such meeting at Aroma hotel at Phatak No.22 Madhur caught her red
handed, she confided in Madhur and promised to end her relationship with Ashish.
• Archita‟s personal life became hell as her mental agony was aggravated due to
intervention of her in-laws, including her sister-in-law Sonam. Archita eventually became
a victim of demand of dowry; she was constantly asked to bring more money from her
parent‟s house.
• Due to her failure to meet the demand, the mental torture was amplified. She confided in
Ashish who constantly consoled her and always advised her to improve her relations with
her husband and her in-laws.
th
• The last time that Archita met Ashish was the 25 July 2017. Madhur on the other hand
was cold and constantly taunted her on her friendship with Ashish and the poor status of
her family.

-II-
ISSUE AT HAND

• On the August 10th 2017, circumstances were of such a nature that took away the life of
Archita. While she was in the bathroom, kerosene oil was poured over her and her in-
laws apparently lit a match-stick and threw it inside the bathroom. She cried out loudly
for half an hour, to the knowledge of the neighbors. She got burned and died.
• With the information from the neighbor’s, the police came in and seized the match-box,

9

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

tin of kerosene oil and a suicide note. The suicide note mentioned, “I have had enough of
life without any love and don’t want to live any longer.”
• The police arrested the husband, his father and mother, and also her sister in-law Sonam.

-III-
TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

• The charges against the accused persons are under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

10
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR OFFENCE

UNDER SECTION 498 A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS CAN BE HELD GUILTY FOR OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 304 B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

11

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498 A OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR COMMITTING CRUELTY AGAINST THE
DECEASED.

The prosecution humbly contends that all the ingredients under Section 498A are satisfied in
the present case. The facts of the case clearly suggest that there were several acts of
“cruelty” on behalf of Madhur and his family members. Such acts were of such a severe
nature that Archita was compelled to resort to medical treatment for the mental torture she
had to face.

2. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR THE ABETMENT OF
SUICIDE WITH COMMON INTENTION.

Firstly, the prosecution humbly contends that all the essential ingredients of section 306, IPC
are satisfied since the acts of the deceased’s husband and in-laws amount to instigation,
which further falls within the definition of abetment under section 107, IPC. The present one
is a case where the accused persons had, by their acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.

Secondly, the prosecution humbly contends that the ingredients of section 34 are satisfied and
the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. In the present case, the common intention
of the defendants can be inferred from the fact that in spite of the torture taking a serious toll
on the health of Archita, which made her consult a doctor for depression, her in-laws
exaggerated the torturous acts relating to the demand of dowry.

12
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

3. THAT THE ACCUSED ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 304 B OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR CAUSING DOWRY DEATH.
The prosecution respectfully submits that in the present case, all the ingredients of the
provision are satisfied i.e. Archita died within seven years of the marriage, owing to pressure
resulting from the demands of dowry from her in-laws. The acts committed by the accused
persons clearly constitute “cruelty” under this section.

13

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498 A OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR COMMITTING CRUELTY RESULTING IN HIS
WIFE COMMITTING SUICIDE.

1.1. That the acts of the husband and in-laws of the deceased amount to “cruelty” under this
provision.
1. The prosecution humbly contends before this Hon’ble Court that the essential ingredients
of Section 498A, IPC have been fulfilled.
2. Section 498A states:
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 purposes 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 the 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.
3. It is humbly submitted that the facts of the case clearly suggest that there were several
acts of “cruelty” on behalf of Madhur and his family members. Such acts were of such a
severe nature that Archita was compelled to resort to medical treatment for the mental
torture she had to face.
4. The expression 'cruelty' postulates such treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in
the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her
life. To decide the question of cruelty the relevant factors are the matrimonial relationship
between the husband and wife, their cultural and temperamental state of life, their state of

14
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

health and their interaction in daily life1. Human reactions may be different and the more
sensitive persons may react more violently even to minor incidents.
5. The new Webster’s Dictionary [College Edition-1998] has given the meaning to the word
'cruel' as follows:
“Disposed to give pain to others in body or mind; destitute of pity, compassion, or
kindness; applied to persons; exhibiting or proceeding from cruelty, causing pain, grief
or distress; inhuman, tormenting, vexing.”2
6. Parameters of what constitutes cruelty in matrimonial affairs have been well carved out in
American Jurisprudence3. These are:
“The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for
divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person
complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a
reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would
have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may
be laughed off by another, and what may -not be cruel to an individual under one set of
circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances. Thus to
ascertain marital cruelty though ordinarily whole series of acts or conduct should be
weighed to infer cruelty yet an isolated act can lead to inference of cruelty if its gravity
or seriousness or of such a magnitude that it is likely to cause injury to physical or
mental health of victim spouse. Composite picture should be drawn as to the acts,
incident or conduct for ascertaining whether these amount to cruelty physical or mental.
Unless such kinds of physical or mental ill treatments when taken together lead to the
inference of t persistent cruelty charge of cruelty cannot sack.”4

1
State of Karnataka v. Baleppa, 1999 Cr. L.J. 3064 (Kant) (DB)
2
As quoted in Sunagalct L Hegde Smt. v, Laxminarayan Anant Hegde & anor 2003 Cr. L.J. 1418 (Kant.)

3
2dn edn, vol. 24, page 206.
4
Savitri Devi v. Ramesh Chand & ors. 2003 Cr. L.J. (2759), Delhi

15

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

2. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR THE ABETMENT OF
SUICIDE WITH COMMON INTENTION.

2.1. That the essential ingredients of Section 306, IPC are satisfied.

1. The prosecution humbly contends before this Hon’ble Court that the essential ingredients
of Section 306, IPC have been fulfilled.
According to Section 107, IPC:
The 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 places in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
2. In the present case, the prosecution humbly contends that the accused persons, knew
about the consequences of their actions and went on anyway to torture the deceased to an
extent which drove her to the point of breaking and led her to commit suicide.
3. It is further admitted that the following acts of accused persons amount to “Abetment” as
under Section 107, IPC:
a. Even before Archita started meeting Ashish, her in-laws used to constantly taunt
her on failure to bring adequate gifts at the time of marriage.
b. The fact that the deceased was undergoing medical treatment due to depression,
failed to stop the torture from her in-laws, including her sister-in-law Sonam.
c. Madhur, the deceased’s husband, failed to side with her and used to repeatedly
taunt her regarding her relationship with Ashish, even though her last meeting
with Ashish took place on 25th July 2017.
d. When Archita had poured kerosene oil over herself in the bathroom, her in-laws
apparently lit a match-stick and threw it inside.
e. That all the above actions were done by the accused persons, wilfully and
consciously.

16
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

4. In Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.5, there was consistent reliable and trustworthy evidence
to prove that accused husband constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife for
bringing insufficient dowry articles. Consequently wife poured kerosene oil and set her
body on fire and sustained 100 per cent burn injuries. Husband though present in house at
the time of incident made no attempt to save his deceased wife. He did not even bother to
call doctor. Therefore presumption contemplated under section 113-A, Evidence Act
would be attracted in facts and circumstances of the case. Accused husband failed to
rebut that presumption. Therefore, conviction of accused under Section 306, I.P.C. was
held not to be illegal.
5. That, in the case of State v. Subramanian6 it was held that however strong the suspicion
against the accused, if every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded,
person cannot be convicted. In this case, there is no doubt that the accused was directly
responsible for Archita’s death.
6. It was held in the case of Dr. Pravin Vaishya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh7 that:
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To
satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect. Or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence.”
7. The prosecution humbly contends that, the present one is a case where the accused
persons had, by their acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in
which case an instigation may have been inferred.
8. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State8, the court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The court opined that there should be
intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. The court
observed:
“Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any

5
2007 IV Cr. LJ. 3741 (S.C).
6
2006(2) MLJ (Crl) 1001
7
CRR-1600-2015
8
AIR 2012 SC 875

17

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.”

“The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear
that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea
to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased
to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
9. The prosecution humbly contends that acts of the accused persons are equivalent to
“instigation” as they goaded, encouraged and were responsible for driving the prosecutrix
to commit suicide and that the accused persons had a clear mens rea to commit the
offence under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC.

2.2. That the ingredients of section 34, IPC are satisfied and the chain of circumstantial
evidence is complete.

1. Section 34, IPC 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.
2. In the present case, the criminal act is the abetment of Archana’s suicide by the
defendants, that is, her husband Madhur along with her in-laws, including her sister in-
law, Sonam, which was done in the furtherance of their common intention.

3. The classic case on the subject is the judgment of the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v.
Emperor,9 wherein it was held as under:

“…Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section
does not say “the common intentions of all” nor does it say “an intention common to all”. Under
the section, the essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention
animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention.

9
AIR 1945 PC 118

18
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

4. Common intention can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Generally, direct

proof of common intention is not available. In most of the cases, it can be inferred from
the acts or conduct of the accused and other relevant circumstances appearing from
“proved facts” of the case.
5. It was stated in Bajirao Gondappa Chaugule v. The State Of Maharashtra10 that common
intention is gathered from the manner in which the crime is committed, the conduct of the
accused soon before and after the occurrence, the determination and concern with which
the crime was committed, the weapon carried by accused and the nature of injury caused
by one or some of them. Therefore, for arriving at a conclusion whether the accused had
the common intention to commit an offence for which they could be convicted, the
totality of the circumstances must be taken in consideration.
6. Participation in commission of crime, which is the leading element of section 34, may be
overt or covert act. In the cases of Javed Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh11 and Virendra
Singh vs State Of M.P.12, it was stated that participation means ‘providing assistance,
support or guidance or doing something which may not be active participation but
facilitating the commission of crime’.
7. In the present case, the common intention of the defendants can be inferred from the fact
that in spite of the torture taking a serious toll on the health of Archita, which made her
consult a doctor for depression, her in-laws exaggerated the torturous acts relating to the
demand of dowry. Even though she tried to make amends and improve her marital
relations, the accused persons did not stop causing said mental agony to her. Moreover,
her husband didn’t interfere in the matter, but rather he constantly taunted her on her
friendship with Ashish and the poor status of her family.
8. Therefore, it is strongly pleaded that not only the husband, but his father, mother and
sister; all are liable for the death of Archita. Such an abetment was a result of common
intention of all the said accused.

10
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1995
Decided On: 11.02.2005
11
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1240, 1241 and 1242 of 2006
Decided On: 08.05.2009
12
Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2002
Decided On: 09.08.2010

19

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

4. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 304 B OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FOR CAUSING THE DOWRY DEATH OF THE
DECEASED.

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused persons are liable under
the following provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

304-B. Dowry death:

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any bums 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. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry", shall have the same
meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) 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.

2. In the present case, all the following ingredients of the Section 304 B are present:

a) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than
under normal circumstances.
b) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
c) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, by her husband or any
relative of her husband.
d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
e) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon
before her death.

3. It was observed in Raja Lai Singh v. State of Jharkhand13 that the expression soon before
death occurring in Section 304-B, I.P.C. is an elastic term. It can refer to a period either

13
2007 III Cr. L.J. 3262 (SC).

20
 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

immediately before death of deceased or within a few days or few weeks before death.
What is relevant is there should be a perceptible nexus between death of deceased and
dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on the woman concerned.

21

 RGNUL CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, NOVEMBER, 2017

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudicate:

a) That the accused persons are guilty of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
b) That the accused persons are guilty of the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
c) That the accused persons are guilty of the offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Prosecution as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION

22