IPC moot memorial in the case of dowry death, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download IPC moot memorial in the case of dowry death and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! REVA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES MOOT MEMORIAL FOR I- II SUBMITTED BY: PRACHI GARG SRN: R19BL052 CLASS: BBA LLB 4TH SEM SEC-B SUBMITTED TO: Prof. MEERA B LATHA i MOOT PROPOSITION IA- II BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PALMGROVE _ _ IN THE MATTER OF ANIKITA & ANEESH......................................................................................................Appellant v. STATE OF PALMGROVE ………………………………………………………...Respondent _ _ MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  A.I.R. All India Reporter  Art.  Article  Edn.  Edition  Hon’ble  Honorable  H.C  High Court  IPC  Indian Penal Code  J.  Justice  Jour. Journal  Ltd.  Limited  MPC  Mangalore Penal Code  Ors  Others  p.  Page  pp.  Pages  Sec  Section  SCC  Supreme Court Cases  U.O.I.  Union of India  v.  Versus Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 2 MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS REFFERED  constitution of India- V.N Shukla  constitution of India- Dr. J.N Pandey  Indian Penal Code- Prof. S.N Misra WEBSITES REFERRED  www.indiankanoon.com  www.ibclaw.com  www.casemine.com  www.legalservicesindia.com  www.manuoatrafast.com  www.westlaw.in CASE LAWS REFFERED  Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh  State v. Diwanji Gardharji and Ors  Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar  Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand  Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana  Sham Lal v. State of Haryana  Shyam Lal v, State of Chhattisgarh  Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh  State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh  Raj Bala v. State of Haryana  Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P  Sahib Rao v. State of Maharashtra  Nachhatter Singh v. State of Punjab Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 3 MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATUTES REFFERED  Indian penal code  Constitution of India ISSUES RAISED 1. Whether the appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is maintainable or not. 2. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC. 3. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC. 4. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. Whether the appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is maintainable or not. It is submitted before this hon’ble high court that the appeal filed by the appellants Ankita and Aneesh is not maintainable. It is humbly submitted that this case lacks sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the appeal, thus in this case there is no need of a review as the judgement of the trial court is fair and just according to law. 2. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC. It is submitted before this hon’ble court that the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC as the facts given in the following case leads to fulfilling all the essentials of the section. 3. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the both the accused are liable for section 302 of MPC as they committed offence of murder through burning Anjali (deceased) alive resulting her to succumb 90% of burn injuries which led her to her death. 4. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the deceased was constantly mentally and verbally abused by both accused which led her to commit suicide. Hence, the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 11 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. Whether the appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is maintainable or not. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High court that this appeal filed by the appellants shall not be allowed by the Hon'ble High court because there was not any illegality or any irregularity of procedure or violation of the principles of natural justice resulting in absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice. The Hon'ble trial court followed the due procedure of law and principles of natural justice in its decision of acquittal of the petitioners Ankita and Aneesh, as no person can be convicted for an offense until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The shreds of evidence on record and statements of the prime witness, in this case, prove no reasonable doubts. The present case has strong evidence of the dying statement of Anjali (the victim) that was given in the presence of the Sub-inspector of Police and few doctors at the Hospital. As held in the case of Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1 where the High court or any lower court takes a plausible view in acquitting the accused from murder, the SC need not incline to take a different view in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Also, in the case State v. Diwanji Gardharji and Ors2 on 6 October 1961, there was a preliminary objection that was raised that appeal is not maintainable since criminal appeal no.645 of 1960 filed by the respondents against their convictions was already decided by a Division Bench of the High court 2. Whether the accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that section 304B of MPC 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 1 AIR 2010 SC 762 2 criminal appeal no.645 of 1960 Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 11 It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that section 306 states that 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. Supreme court held that the husband was responsible for creating circumstances which provoked or forced his wife to commit suicide and he was therefore liable to be convicted under section 306.9Similarly, both the accused created such circumstances by harassing her mentally and demanding a large sum of amount as dowry that deceased was provoked to commit suicide from which she fortunately was saved by her sister-in-law. In Raj Bala v. State of Haryana10 the trial judge based on the material brought on record found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 MPC. In the present case it is clearly mentioned the facts that the deceased was tortured by her husband and mother-in-law which can be counted as circumstantial evidence. The supreme court held that there was consistent reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove that accused husband constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife for bringing in sufficient dowry articles. Therefore, conviction of accused under 306 MPC was held not illegal.11 In the present case the accused persons constantly humiliated and asked for dowry in for of money which is well proven based on the facts which led Anjali (deceased) to try to commit suicide.12 It was held in Nachhatter Singh v. State of Punjab13 that in case of suicide on account of cruelty, cruelty meted out must be of nature as would drive a person of common prudence to commit suicide. Wherein, in the present case as well Anjali was exposed to cruelty to such extent that she was forced to commit suicide. 9 State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, 1991 Cri. L.J. 1897 (SC) 10 2015 Cri. L.J. 4630 (SC) 11 Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P, 2007 IV Ci. L.J. 3741 (SC) 12 Sahib Rao v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cri. L.J 2881 (SC) 13 2011 II Cri. L.J.2292 (SC) Ankita & Aneesh v. State of Palmgrove 12 PRAYER AND CONCLUSION Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that: 1. The appeal filed by Ankita and Aneesh is not maintainable. 2. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for dowry death as per section 304B of MPC. 3. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for murder as per section 302 of MPC. 4. The accused Ankita and Aneesh were liable for abetment of suicide as per section 306 of MPC. And to pass any other order in favor of the respondent that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which are respectfully submitted, Place: S/d Date: Counsel for the Respondent