Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

TEAM CODE:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHRS …. APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH …. RESPONDENT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. ****/2020

CASE CONCERNING OFFENCES


UNDER SECTION 498A, 304B, 306

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA


UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONST. OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL


APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………...……………………………………3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………….….4-6

 List of cases …...…………………………………………………………..4-5


 Books ………………………………………………………………………..5
 Websites …………………………………………………………………….5
 Statutes …………………………….………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………7

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………….8

ISSUES PRESENTED ………………………………………………………………..12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………..13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………...…………………………………...…….15

1. That the Special Leave Petition is maintainable.


2. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section 498-A?
3. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section 304-B?
4. Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section 306?

PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………20

2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
V.P. Vindhya Pradesh
AIR All Indiana Report
Anr. Another
IPC Indiana Penal Code
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
E.g. Example
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
No. Number
Ors. Others
r/w Read with
Retd. Retired
S./Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
St. State
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
u/s Under Section
v. Versus

3|Page
LIST OF CASES

1. Rashid Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 264

2. Banka Naiko v. State of Orissa AIR 1976 SC 2013

3. Abhimanya Biswas v. Abdul AIR 1981 Cal 444

4. State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh AIR 1988 SC 2013

5. Shanti v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1226

6. Bajrang v. State of Rajasthan 1993 CrLJ 134(Raj)

7. Public Prosecutor, HC of AP v. Pothula N Rao 1993 CrLJ 2729

8. Imran Khan v. State of MP 1995 CrLJ 17 (MP)

9. Nand Kishor v State of Maharashtra 1995 CrLJ 3706 (BOM)

10.Surendar Kumar v State 1997 CrLJ 1737 P&H

11. State of H P v Jog Raj 1997 CrLJ 2033 (HP)

12.State of Orissa v. Parasuram Naik AIR 1997 SC 3569

13.Meka Ramaswami v Dasri Mohan AIR 1998 SC 774

14.Nanahau Ram v Stat of MP AIR 1998 SC 912

15.Pawan Kumar v State of Harayana AIR 1998 SC 1958

16.Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of AP AIR 1999 SC 3455

17.State of Karnataka v Shankar 2000 CrLJ 917(KANT)

18.State of UP v Mahesh Chandra Pandey AIR 2000 SC 3631

19.Arvind Singh Vs State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 2124

20.Kamalakar Nandram Bavasar v State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 503

21.Kanti Lal v State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 498

22.Satbir Singh v State of Haryana 2011 CrLJ 604 P&H

4|Page
23.Ranjit Singh v State of Punjab (2011) 15 SCC 285

24.Vadlokonda Lenin v State of A.P (2012) 12 SCC 260

25.Mustafa Shahadal Shekh v State of Maharashtra (2012) AIR (SCW) 5308

26.Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

27.K.V. Prakash Babu v State of Karnataka SLP-CRL 5928-5929 of 2016

28.Gurjeet Singh v State of Punjab (2015)

29.Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 8 SCC 176

30.Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v State of Gujrat 262 of 2009

5|Page
LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Bare Act by Universals


 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bare Act by Universals
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Bare Act by Universals
 Constitution of India, Bare Text by Universals
 Law of Crimes, Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal, 34th edition 2014, Lexis Nexis
 Law of Crimes, K.D. Gaur 5th edition, 2014, Universals Law Publication
 Law of Evidence, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal 24th edition, Lexis Nexis Publication
 Supreme Court Cases, 2014
 Supreme Court Cases, 2013
 Supreme Court Cases, 2012
 Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2014
 Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2013
 Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2012
 Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2011
 Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2010

WEBSITES

 www.courtnic.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com
 http://indiankanoon.org/
 www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
 judis.nic.in

6|Page
STATUTES

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)

 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 18 of 1872)

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

7|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel on behalf of the Appellant have endorsed their pleading before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Indiana under Article 136 of the Constitution.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND


ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.

8|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The counsel on behalf of accused person would humbly submit before the Learned session
court that following are the facts of the present cases

 Following is the list of persons involved

A-1 Shikhar Singh Husband of deceased


A-2 **** Father-in-law of deceased
A-3 **** Mother-in-law of deceased
PW-1 Sareeta Mother of the deceased
PW-2 Karan Father of the deceased
PW-3 Shanta Devi Servant at Appellants house
PW-4 Tina Appellants colleague and neighbour

 Arundhati Roy (herein after referred to as deceased), a 23 years old earnest girl from a
middle-class background got married to Shikhar Singh who was a postmaster at the
local post office on 2nd May, 2016 under Hindu rituals.
 Soon after the marriage, differences arose between deceased and her mother-in-law.
 On 27th October, 2016 Sub inspector Tawde on receipt of information, found the body
of Arundhati (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in burnt condition.
 The autopsy report postulates that death has resulted from severe burns thst accounted
for a total of 88% on the body of the deceased.
 FIR was registered on 4th November 2016, in the name of Sareeta (herein after
referred to as PW1), mother of the deceased.
 PW-1 deposed that her Son-in-law, Shikhar Singh(A-1) demanded huge sums of
money from her daughter on various occasions soon after the marriage.
 She further deposed that the refusal by the deceased to concede to the demands of
Shikhar Singh(A-1) led to frequent altercations between the couple such that Shikhar

9|Page
verbally abused her in filthy language followed by his refusal to consummate the
marriage.
 The letters written by the deceased to her father and the suicide note (from the spot of
incident) which had no mention about the dowry allegations were also recovered.
 The charges against the appellants were framed under Section 498-A, 306 and 304-B
of Indiana Penal Code.

10 | P a g e
ISSUES PRESENTED

a) Whether SLP is maintainable in the instant matter?


b) Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section
498-A?
c) Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section
304-B?
d) Whether the Appellants should be held guilty under the charges under Section
306?

11 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The counsel on behalf of the accused would humbly submit before the Honourable Supreme
Court.

i. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that, the Special Leave Petition filed by the
petitioner, Mr. Shikhar Singh and Others. is maintainable, as the decision given by the
Hon’ble High court was not proper and appropriate as the hon’ble high court failed to give
any proper and special reasons for the order and moreover the conclusions of the high court
are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. Therefore, the
Hon’ble High court erred in misleading the evidence and the records. Secondly, the Hon’ble
court erred while deciding on the basis of complaint which was Prima-Facie does not
constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. The arbitrary and
hasty judgment of the trial court and The HC declaring the petitioners guilty under sec. 498A,
304B, 306 has resulted in miscarriage of justice and if the SC does not intervene, it will result
in gross injustice. The Hon’ble SC should therefore, applying its wide jurisdiction conferred
under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, use corrective measures to correct the wrong done
by the decision of the HC of Vindhya Pradesh.

ii. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY UNDER THE


CHARGES UNDER SECTION 498A?

The counsel on behalf of the accused would humbly submit before the Honourable SC that
the charges framed under section 498A against the accused are completely bogus because -

a) there is no strong evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty of either
physical or mental nature by the accused. Other then the testimony of PW-3 there is
nothing that can establish that the deceased was subjected to any kind of cruelty after
marriage neither by her husband nor by her in-laws.
b) There is no hard evidence that can confirm any kind of harassment or coercion that
the deceased was subjected to, to meet any unlawful demand for property or any
other unlawful valuables.

12 | P a g e
iii. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY UNDER
SECTION 304B?

The counsel on behalf of the accused would humbly submit before the Hon’ble SC that, the
death of deceased, was not a dowry death as it does not meet the essential ingredient of
section 304B of IPC, 1860. As supra, there is no hard evidence that the deceased was ever
subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment and no demand of dowry was ever made by
the husband or the in-laws of the deceased and if Any gifts, costly or otherwise, as exchanged
between the families is in accordance of the customary exchange of gifts and the settled law
does not tag such gifts as Dowry.

iv. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE HELD GUILTY UNDER


SECTION 306?

The counsel on behalf of the accused would humbly submit before the Hon’ble SC that, the
death of the deceased was a suicide and was not abetted by anyone. The suicide note written
by the deceased before her death neither mentions any kind of cruelty or harassment which
she was subjected to nor there was mention of any kind of demand for dowry from her
husband or in-laws. More over as supra there is nothing that can tie the accused to any kind
of cruelty or harassment or demands of dowry, which in completely excludes the scope of
abetment of suicide.

That, in conclusion, the SLP submitted on behalf of the accused in the SC of Indiana is
maintainable and the accused persons have wrongly been accused and convicted under
sections 498A, 304B, and 306 of the Indiana Penal Code of 1860 by the lower courts.

13 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

14 | P a g e