TEAM CODE: 4AUR35

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPEAL NO. ___ Of 2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Raghvendra & others APPEALLANTS

V.

State of Rajasthan& others RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

[This Memorandum has been prepared for Respondents: State of Rajasthan]

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India

4th Amity National Moot Court Competition, 2017

 INDEX

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................III

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………….IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………
VII
SYNOPSIS OF
FACTS………………………………………………………………………..VIII
STATEMENT OF
ISSUES……………………………………………………………………..X
SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………...XI
PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………………………………..
1
1. Whether the above grounds are sufficient to decide the guilty of
accused ?....................1
2. What is the evidentiary value of FIR and statements made under section 161 of
Cr.P.C. ? Can the accused be punished only on basis of these
evidences ?....................................4
3. What is the evidentiary value of expert opinion? Can an accused be punished on the
basis of Post Mortem Report ?.................................................................................7
4. Whether Section 304-B of IPC is applicable or not?................................................11

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………
XII
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acc. According

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

CJI Chief Justice of India

Etc. Et cetera

HC High Court

H.P. Himachal Pradesh

Hon’ble Honourable

IEA Indian Evidence Act, 1872

IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- Signed

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

The Constitution of India

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Table of Cases
Judicial decisions Citation Foot Note No.
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2010 SC 3391 22, 45
Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha v State of AIR 2016 SC 1197 15
Haryana and another
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2010 SC 2839 10
Ashok Bansal and others v State 2014 (213) DLT 427 19, 39
Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar (1997) 9 SCC 338 21
Bachni Devi & Anr. v State Of Haryana Through AIR 2011 SC 1098 16
Secretary, Home Department,
Basisth Narayan Yadav v Kailash Rai and others (2015) 7 SCC 555 29
Bhagirathi v. State of Haryana AIR 1997 SC 234 5
Bhim Singh and another v State of Uttarakhand , (2015) 4 SCC 281 61
Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State Of U.P . 2001 CriLJ 1384 64
Darshan Singh v State of Punjab 1955 SCC (Cri) 702 54
Davinder Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2014 SC 2918 33
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural Sub- 2012 Cr LJ 14
division, Trichy v. Sheik Dawood, 4137(MAD
Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 104 4
Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh and Others AIR 1990 SC 209 19
Hanumant Raojibhai v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 3
K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao AIR 2003 SC 11 49
Kansa Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR1987 SC 1507 53
Kailash v. State of MP, AIR 2007 SC 107 46, 7

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883 22

Keshab Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cr.LJ 174 (Ori) 44

Kundala Bala Subranayam v. State of AP, (1993) 2 SCC 684 62

Mallella Shyamsunder v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 486 30
Maya Devi and another v. State of Haryana AIR 2016 SC 125 41
Manohar Lal v State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 2555 32
Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey (1992) 3 SCC 204 24
Munesh, (In Jail) v State of Uttar Pradesh 2004 CRLJ 1529 2
Munni @ Syed Akbar v State of Inspector Of Police, (2014) 10 SCC 623 28
All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam
Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra 1995 Cr.LJ 3706 42
Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P, AIR 2012 SC 3205 8
Queen v. Ahmed Ally, (1998) 3 SCC 309 25
 Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 2855 6
Rajinder Kumar v State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 215 13
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of (2011) 11 SCC 111 55, 57
Gujarat
Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 689 40, 47
Shanti v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1226 36
Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of (1984) 4 SCC 116 57
Maharashtra,
Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 59

Sultan Singh v State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 27, 28

State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Anandrao, 2002 Cr.LJ 4198 64

(Bom)

Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 18

Vithal Tukaram More & Ors. v. State of (2002) 7 SCC 20 21
Maharashtra,

V. K. Mishra and another v State of Uttarakhand AIR 2015 SC 3043 19

and another,

Yashoda v. State of MP, AIR 2005 SC 1411 39

List of books

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, RATANLAL& DHIRAJLAL(STUDENTS EDITION) LEXIS

NEXIS
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,(2010) 17 TH
EDITION REPRINT
SARKAR, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 9TH EDITION REPRINT (2010)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 2ND EDITION, LEXISNEXIS

WEB REFERENCE
www.scconline.com
www.westlaw.com

www.manupatra.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum before this Hon’ble court in response to

the appeal filed under Article 136 of constitution of India. It sets forth the facts and laws on

which the claims are based.

It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable court that the evidence is considered
properly in the present case. Also SLP does not concern itself with the weight of evidence, or the
conflict of evidence or with inferences drawn from evidence or with questions as to
corroboration or contradictions of testimony or as to whether there was sufficient evidence to
satisfy the burden of proof.1

In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, 2 the Supreme Court has held that under article
136 the SC has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and order passed by any court
or tribunal in India. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special residuary power to
entertain appeal against any order of any court.

1
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2016 at Pg. 174)
2
(1991) 4 SCC 406
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

On 1st January, 2013 Gauri and Ragvendra singh Shekhawat got married and living at village
Isarda, District Tonk, Rajasthan, with their joint family. They were living a happy life but things
got changed after death of Gauri’s father-in-law. On 20 th February 2015 Gauri’s father Charan
Singh received call from Ragvendra that Gauri committed suicide. On next day Charan singh
along with his family, they found that Raghvendra and his family is ready to take Gauri’s body
for funeral without informing the police about her suicide. Deceased father Charan Singh lodged
F.I.R. regarding this issue. On behalf of FIR lodged by deceased father, Police Officer sends the
body for post mortem.

Charan Singh made some statements to the police in his F.I.R.

He stated that Gauri was living a happy married life but things got changed after the death of her
father-in-law. On 10th December, 2013 Gauri called to Leelawati and said that her mother-in-
law asking her to bring 20 lakhs from Jodhpur for establishing the electronic products showroom
for Dev Singh. They fulfill this demand by selling their ancestral property of Churu. Deceased
in-laws again made a demand of motorbike which had also been fulfilled.

He also stated that at the time of her pregnancy she was sent to her paternal home and was
harassed and threatened to give birth to male child. On 15th May 2014 a girl child was born to
her daughter Gauri, but no one from her in-laws had come to see her or take her back. Nobody
from her in-laws came to take her back; suddenly on the morning of 15th October 2014 her
brother-in-law Dev Singh and her sister- in-law Nidhi came to Jodhpur and on the same day took
back Gauri and child to their home at Isarda. Charan Singh and his family hopes that everything
will be fine now. He further stated that Gauri was not allow to keep a mobile phone and she talk
to them only in the presence of raghvendra from his phone.

Police has started the investigation and write the statement of following persons under
Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-

Charan Singh put allegations on Ragvendra that they had committed “dowry death” as there
conduct was suspicious. Leelawati deceased mother and other family female members saw

bruises on Gauri’s body. Charan Singh’s elder daughter Mamta told that Gauri called her at
07:45 am on the same day, i.e. 20th February, 2015, with Raghvendra’s mobile phone. She was
sounding tensed and wants to tell something to Mamta, but the call was suddenly disconnected
within a minute. So, if she had died at 07:00 am then how it could be possible that she can call
Mamta at 07:45 am (Mamta also shown the call detail to police).
Statements of Raghvendra’s family members

Raghvendra stated that on 20th February morning he went for morning walk and when he came
back he saw Gauri’s dead body, as he was in shock he didn’t call deceased parents immediately.
He further stated that at the night of 18th February 2015, he had an argument with Gauri over the
issue of shifting at Tonk separately from the entire family and when he refused Gauri injured
herself with the wall of the room and get bruises on her body. Raghvendra mentioned that Gauri
after his father’s death started pressurizing him to shift at Tonk. She asks him to take her for
outing on every weekend and demands expensive gifts. On non- fulfilment of her wish she badly
behaves with the entire family members and insults them.

Yashodhara Devi gave the statement that one day, after her husband’s death Gauri demanded to
buy a diamond necklace, and when she refuses to do so Gauri had taken the amount from her
father. Nidhi stated that Gauri did not do any of the household work and if Ragvendra told him to
her his mother she starts fighting with them.

Raghvendra’s brother stated that Gauri in the seventh month of her pregnancy was going back to
her paternal home, his mother was asking her to wait till Raghvendra to come but she refuses and
left for Jodhpur. Whenever she was asked to come back she put a condition before them that
she will return only when Raghvendra will ready to shift at Tonk.

Post Mortem Report

Post mortem report shows that there were bruises on Gauri’s body which were 12 hours older
and the cause of death was excessive consumption of sleeping pills

The investigation officer submits his report in the court and session court found them guilty on
the bases of above grounds. Decision of session court was upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1) Whether the above grounds are sufficient to decide the guilty of accused?

2) What is the evidentiary value of FIR and statements made under section 161 of Cr.P.C?

Can the accused be punished only on basis of these evidences?

3) What is the evidentiary value of expert opinion? Can an accused be punished on the

basis of Post Mortem Report?

4) Whether Section 304-B of IPC is applicable or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
DECISION OF HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIABLE

Respondents most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the decision of High Court of
Rajasthan was justifiable as the circumstances are of conclusive in nature, and appellants are not
able to rebut the burden of prove.

STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 OF Cr.P.C. ARE ADMISSIBLE

It is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble Court that statements of deceased parents have
evidentiary value as it was consistent with the post mortem report and throughout the trial. There
were not even mere discrepancies in the statements.

CONVICTION CAN BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF POST MORTEM REPORT

Post mortem report is crucial evidence in cases where the death was controversial. In many
precedents this Hon’ble court had consider post mortem report to convict the accused.

SECTION 304-B IS APPLICABLE

It is humbly submitted that the Appellants are guilty of offences charged under section 304-B as
the prosecution has establish all the ingredients are present in this case and Appellants fail to
rebut the guilt as the burden of proof was on accused.

PLEADINGS
 1. Whether the above grounds are sufficient to decide the guilty of accused?

The counsel on behalf of Respondents most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Supreme Court
that the Judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in punishing the Appellants was correct, thus the
same must be upheld by this court. The judgment is based on circumstantial evidences and High
Court had not done any error in considering the evidences as appellants were not able to prove
that there exists a reasonable doubt.

High court has considered the statements3 of the deceased family which are consistent with the
post mortem report and throughout the trial. In criminal cases, evidence of witnesses can only be
accepted, if on the care/substratum of the prosecution case, their statements in the court are
consistent with their statements under section 161, CrPC.4

Circumstances are of conclusive nature

It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In
other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 5 In present
case also the circumstances are of conclusive nature as there is no reason to disbelieve the
statements of deceased parents and family members as all ingredients of section 304B of I.P.C.,
1860 were fulfilled. The statements of the parents of the victim, at this stage, are prima-facie
sufficient to show that there was cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry.6

3
Recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. 1973
4
Munesh, (In Jail) v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004 CRLJ 1529
5
Hanumant Raojibhai v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343
6
Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 104
The SC ruled out that the testimony of a witness could not be discarded for the reason that there
were minor contradictions in their versions.7 In the present case there is not even a mere
contradiction in the statements of deceased family members, and it was consistent with post
mortem report also.

Accused are guilty of offence under Section 304-B I.P.C., 1860

Evidence showed persistent demand for dowry and harassment, humiliation and continuous
beating of wife by her husband and in-laws. She was administered poison mixed with “Prasad”.
This happened within 7 years of marriage and therefore the presumption under 113-B of
Evidence was attracted. There was unnatural conduct on the part of the accused person in not
informing her parents living within a few miles. Conviction of the accused persons was held to
be proper.8 In the instant case also the conduct of appellant were suspicious as they did not
inform deceased parents within a reasonable time, they were also not willing to inform police
about the incident.

In the present case the death is not occurred under normal circumstances, the expression
“otherwise than under normal circumstances” means a death not taking place in the course of
nature and apparently under suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily injury9

If section 304-B IPC is read together with Section113-B of Evidence Act, a comprehensive
picture emerges that if a married woman dies in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial
home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon
such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of
the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and shall be a presumption
against the husband and the relatives.10

In Sher Singh @ Partapa vs. State of Haryana,11 it had been held therein that the use of word
'shown' instead of 'proved' in Section 304B IPC indicates that the onus cast on the prosecution
would stand satisfied on the anvil of a mere preponderance of probability . In other words, 'shown' will

7
Bhagirathi v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 234
8
Ram Badan Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 2855
9
Kailash v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC107
10
Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P, AIR 2012 SC 3205
11
(2015) 1 SCR 29
have to be read up to mean 'proved' but only to the extent of preponderance of probability.
Thereafter, the word 'deemed' used in that Section is to be read down to require an accused to
prove his innocence, but beyond reasonable doubt. The 'deemed' culpability of the accused
leaving no room for the accused to prove innocence was, accordingly, read down to a strong
'presumption' of his culpability. The accused is required to rebut this presumption by proving his
innocence.

There is no reasonable doubt

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in contradiction with criminal jurisprudence
the concept of deeming fiction applies in case of section 304B. Where other ingredients of
section 304-B are satisfied, in that event, the husband or all relatives shall be deemed to have
cause her death. Once the prosecution proves its case with regard to the basic ingredients of
Section 304-B, the court will presume by deemed fiction of law that the husband or the relatives
complained of, has caused her death. Such a presumption can be drawn by the court keeping in
view the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of substantive charge under Section
304-B of I.P.C. This deemed fiction would introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband
and his relatives may, by leading their defense and proving that the ingredients of Section 304-B
were not satisfied, rebut the same12 By a deeming fiction in law, the onus shifts on the accused to
prove as to how the deceased died. It is for the accused to show that the death of deceased did
not result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused person 13. In the present case the
burden of prove lies on accused and they were not able to establish that there exist a reasonable
doubt.

2. What is the evidentiary value of FIR and statements made under section 161 of
Cr.P.C? Can the accused be punished only on basis of these evidences?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. were
corroborating evidence but in cases of matrimonial offence oral evidence plays a crucial role. If

12
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 2839
13
Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 3205
the prosecution establish through these circumstantial evidence that the ingredients of section
304B I.P.C., 1860 were fulfilled then it upon accused to prove these statements fabricated.

In Rajayyan v State of Kerala and Another14, this Hon’ble Court did not consider the statements
of appellants as it was in contradiction and they also not found any reason to disbelieve in oral
evidences of deceased parents. In the case at hand, statements of deceased parents are consistent
with medical report and there statements were leading to some facts like the bruises on deceased
body. Therefore the statements by deceased parents should be considered in the present case
also. When there is consistency in the statements of deceased parents, this Hon’ble Court had
upheld the conviction of accused.15 In Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural Sub-division,
Trichy v. Sheik Dawood,16 it was held that statements of witness recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. are sufficient to alter the charge under 304-B of I.P.C. and convicts the accused.
Supreme Court upheld the decision of conviction with only circumstantial evidence of statements
recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.17

Similarly a demand of motorcycle was made by accused within seven years of marriage, non-
fulfillment of demand leads to cruelty and harassment with deceased which ultimately results in
death of deceased. Demand of motorcycle was establish through statements of deceased parents
which were recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. Supreme Court held that all the ingredients of dowry
death has been fulfilled.18 In the case at hand it was established by the statements of deceased
parents that there was demand of 20 lakh and a motorbike. Sale deed of property and papers of
bike purchase were also submitted, hence it is clear that appellant had made demand for valuable
things. One of the ingredients of dowry death is establish in the present case through statements
of deceased parents.

Statements made by deceased parents should not be discarded just because of the relation they
have with the deceased, in cases of matrimonial offence the demand of dowry was made within
the four walls results in absence of eye-witness. Demand for dowry could only be proved on the
bases of circumstantial evidence. Supreme Court found improvements in the statements made by

14
AIR 1998 SC 1211
15
Rajinder Kumar v State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 215
16
2012 Cr LJ 4137(MAD)
17
Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha v State of Haryana and another, AIR 2016 SC 1197
18
Bachni Devi & Anr. v State Of Haryana Through Secretary, Home Department, AIR 2011 SC 1098
witness which were not considered. It was held that prosecution had proven the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt through statements produced by prosecution.19 In view of Vishwanath Agrawal
v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal,20 court observed and held:

.In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The
family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural
witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is to be tested on objective parameters and not to be
thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses are related to either of the spouse. Exception
has been taken by the courts below that the servants of the house should have been examined
and that amounts to suppression of the best possible evidence.

In case of dowry death, prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubts that 'soon before her
death' deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her in-laws in
connection with demand of dowry. Supreme Court considers the statements of deceased father
regarding the sale deed of his property which he used in fulfillment of dowry demand at the time
as well as after marriage.21

In Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh and Others,22 Supreme Court found statements of deceased
family members to be sufficient to held accused convict, order of acquittal by High Court was set
aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court and accused were convicted for harassing deceased. In the case
at hand deceased was not happy with the treatment of her in-lawsThis Court has held that in a
case where other members of the husband's family are charged with offences under Sections
304B, 302 and 498A of the IPC and the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the circumstantial,

she informed a little about this to her family members. In the present case High Court
undoubtedly relied upon the statements of deceased father, same must be consider by this
Hon’ble Court.

evidence must be of required standard if conviction has to be based on it. 23 In the present case
through evidences of deceased parents it is clear that deceased was subjected to cruelty. She was

19
Satya Pal v State Of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 2015
20
(2012) 7 SCC 288
21
V. K. Mishra and another v State of Uttarakhand and another, AIR 2015 SC 3043
22
AIR 1990 SC 209
23
Vithal Tukaram More & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 20
allowed to talk to her parents only in presence of Ragvendra, they didn’t allow her to keep a
mobile phone with her. Through statements of deceased father there is a nexus establish between
sale of Charan Singh’s ancestral property and the opening of electronic showroom by one of
Ragvendra’s family member.

In Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar,24 the prosecution had established the cruel conduct
of the accused i.e. her husband and members of his family and the sufferings undergone by the
deceased at their hands. The unbearable conduct of the accused ultimately resulted in her death
by drowning in the well in the courtyard of the accuser’s house. This Court observed that what
happened on the fateful night and what led to the deceased's falling in the well was wholly within
the personal and special knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect. This Court
observed that it is true that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. But once the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent
conduct of cruelty qua the deceased spread over years as was well established from the unshaken
testimony of father of the deceased, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the
accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by them to
disprove the prosecution case.

Therefore in the light of above arguments it is humbly submitted by the Respondents that the
decision of High Court in punishing the Appellants was correct and does not suffer from any
infirmity of law as statements recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. could be admissible in the
Court of Law.

3. What is the evidentiary value of expert opinion? Can an accused be punished on the
basis of Post Mortem Report?

24
(1997) 9 SCC 338
With regards to this issue the counsel humbly submits that the decision of High Court in
considering the post mortem report is correct as it has evidentiary value in cases where the cause
of death is controversial. The post mortem report becomes important in cases where the cause of
death is to be established & is a matter of controversy.25
Expert opinion
When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to
identify of handwritings or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially
skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in question as to identify of handwriting or finger
impression are relevant facts.26
The opinion of expert has relevance bit it should be based on special knowledge and technicality,
this court in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey,27 observed as under:
A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the
evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the
symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all
materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the
Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court
although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to
the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the
medical officer but of the Court.
The evidence of a medical man or other skilled witnesses, however, eminent, as to what he
thinks may or may not have taken place under particular combination of circumstances, however,
confidently, he may speak, is ordinarily a matter of mere opinion.28

In the present case opinion on post mortem report is relevant as it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and in such cases post mortem report and experts opinion became important to establish
the guilt of appellant. This Hon’ble Court had considered post mortem report in several of its
older precedents therefore the same must be held in the instant case. Opinion of expert witness
on technical aspects has relevance but the opinion has to be based upon specialized knowledge

25
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883
26
Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
27
(1992) 3 SCC 204
28
Queen v. Ahmed Ally, (1998) 3 SCC 309
and the data on which it is based has to be found acceptable by the Court. 29 Such statement of an
expert witness without being based on any specialized knowledge cannot be accepted. 30 In the
present case the opinion of doctor cannot be consider as mere opinion, a doctor is a professional
who has sufficient knowledge on technical issues related to our case. Hence in this case the
expert opinion on post mortem report should be consider as relevant and the conviction of
appellant must be upheld by this Court.
In Munni @ Syed Akbar v State of Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode,31 this Hon’ble court consider scientific evidence of post mortem
report and expert opinion in convicting the appellant. In this case there is contradiction on part
appellant’s statement with forensic science report, court held scientific evidence and expert
opinion as admissible in this case. In the instant case statements of appellants were inconsistent
with the post mortem report, thus the same principle in the abovementioned case should be
considered.
Forensic report
With regards to this issue it is humbly submitted that post mortem report is admissible as a
evidence and High Court did not erred in convicting the appellants.
In Basisth Narayan Yadav v Kailash Rai and others32 Supreme Court relied upon post mortem
report which prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty as there were injuries on her body just
before her death. Supreme Court upheld the decision and convicts the accused. In this case post
mortem report was considered as medical evidence.
Therefore in the present case bruises were found in post mortem report just 12 hours before the
death of deceased and the conduct of appellants were suspicious as according to appellant those
bruises should be 48 hours older but it appears to be different, so in our case also post mortem
report should be consider as a medical evidence.
In cases of Dowry Death where the cause of death and the oral evidence were in contradiction
Supreme Court relied upon post mortem report as evidence and convicts the accused 33. It has
been established in leading judicial precedents that where the prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of the highest order can satisfy the test
29
Sultan Singh v State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC
30
Sultan Singh(supra note)
31
(2014) 10 SCC 623
32
(2015) 7 SCC 555
33
Mallella Shyamsunder v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 486
of proof in a criminal prosecution.34 Post mortem report in such type of criminal cases leads to
unseen facts to which a Court may rely upon. In the present case also the oral statements of
Raghvendra is in contradiction with post mortem report and through bruises presumption should
be drawn that she was subjected to cruelty. It was observed that, if the statements of accused
were in contradiction to the post mortem report and supported by statements of deceased parents
Supreme Court upheld the decision and convicts the appellants in these cases35.
Similarly in Davinder Singh v State of Punjab36 Supreme Court consider post mortem report
along with documentary evidence as sufficient on the part of prosecution to prove the guilt of
accused and to convict the accused.
In the case at hand the post mortem report shows that:
1. The time of death of deceased is between 06:00 to 08:00 am approx.
2. The cause of death is only intake of excessive sleeping pills.
3. The bruises have been found on many parts of the deceased body, but it is not clear that
these bruises had been caused by deceased herself or by some other person to her.
4. The bruises marks were approximate 12 hrs. older than the time of death

Through statements of Leelawati and other female family members they had seen bruises on
body of deceased which was supported by post mortem report, but statements of Raghvendra is
in contradiction as according to him those bruises should be 48 hours older approximately and
post mortem report it was just 12 hours older. Hence in the present case as conduct of accused
was suspicious and there statements create contradiction with the post mortem report, this

Hon’ble Court must consider the post mortem report as medical evidence and upheld the
decision of High Court of Rajasthan.
Therefore, in the light of above mentioned contentions it is humbly pleaded that the decision of
High Court was correct as post mortem report is admissible as scientific evidence.

34
Bhim Singh and another v State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281
35
Manohar Lal v State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 2555
36
AIR 2014 SC 2918
 4. WHETHER SECTION 304 B OF I.P.C. IS APPLICABLE OR NOT?

The counsel on behalf of the Respondents most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that
the decision of High Court in convicting the appellant is justifiable and does not suffer from any
infirmity of law. The High Court of Rajasthan had upheld the decision of session court where the
court had convicted the accused. The order of High Court is valid as firstly, the accused were
guilty of dowry death and the deceased was subjected to cruelty and secondly, the chain of
circumstantial evidences establishes that there is present a reasonable doubt.

ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER SECTION 304B I.P.C., 1860

It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Supreme Court that the accused is guilty of the
offence of dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
occurs other than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage & 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.37

To prove the guilt of the accused, the essential ingredients have to be fulfilled. With regards to
this issue, the counsel humbly submits that the present case fulfills the essentials of section 304B
of I.P.C., 1860. In case of Shanti v. State of Haryana38, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY J. said;
“A careful analysis of section 304B shows that this section has the following essentials:

1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband;
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.

In the present case, the deceased had been harassed and there were bruises on her body, which
were 12 hrs old, according to post mortem report. This created a contradiction, as Raghvendra

gave a statement that these bruises were there because Gauri injured herself with the wall of the
room and got bruises on her body on 18 th of February. This clearly shows that she was beaten by
her husband or any of her husband’s relative. In the case at hand, all ingredients of “dowry
death” have been fulfilled. Death of deceased had happened under abnormal circumstances

37
Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
38
AIR 1991 SC 1226
within seven years of her marriage and also she was subjected to cruelty as there were bruises on
her body which were only 12 hrs old. Hence, judgment of the High Court in convicting the
appellants was correct. According to evidences of sale deed of Charan Singh’s ancestral property
and purchasing of bike, it was clear that Raghvendra and his family had demanded dowry.

Dowry means 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 parent 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 marriage39.

It was further contended that Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prohibits the demand
for “giving” property or valuable security which demands, if satisfied, would constitute an
offence under section 3 read with section 2 of the act.

“Soon Before her Death”

The question of “soon before death” has also arisen in this case, but this expression of “soon
before her death” cannot be given a restricted or a narrow meaning. The intent of legislature in
this provision is to emphasize that her death should, in all probabilities, was the cause of such
cruelty and harassment by her husband or any relative of husband. No hard & fast rule of a
universal application has been laid down by prescribing time limit to “soon before death”. 40 In a
case where the wife was persistently subjected to cruelty & harassment by the husband & other
in laws for gold ornaments and the last such torture was practiced fifteen days before the
occurrence, the court said that the requirement of “soon before” was very well justified. 41 The
words 'soon before her death' referred to the perceptible nexus between the death of the victim
and dowry related harassment and the cruelty inflicted upon her. No straitjacket formula can be
laid down and the time period as to what would qualify as 'soon before death' depends upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.42

39
Sec. 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
40
Vidhya Devi v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 476
41
Yashoda v. State of MP, AIR 2005 SC 1411
42
Ashok Bansal and others v State, 2014 (213) DLT 427
Similarly, in a case before this Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was demand of a Maruti car being
pressed by two accused person after marriage but about three years before the death of deceased,
for which she was tortured and maltreated, she had conveyed this to her parents from time to
time on her visits to her parents home as well as on telephone. The test of “soon before” is
satisfied in the facts, evidences and circumstances of the case. 43 In the present case also the first
demand for Rs. 20 lakhs was demanded in the year 2014 and again the demand of a bike in
January 2014, which was only 1 year ago before the incident of death of deceased. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court should consider the facts, evidences and circumstances in the present case and
should uphold the conviction by High Court of Rajasthan.

In case of Maya Devi and another v. State of Haryana44, this court dismissed the appeal for
acquittal of appellants and in this case all the essentials of dowry death were fulfilled, hence this
Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of High court and convicted the accused.

In the present case, we cannot ignore the statements and evidences of relatives. In case of
matrimonial offence like dowry death or domestic violence, the courts are required to be cautious
and have to pay more attention in trial of the cases, appreciation & marshaling of evidence,
especially in the light of circumstances which normally do not permit the parents of the bride or
the bride to react & to respond, to report the matter to the police or the other authorities or to
members of the community, unless they are compelled to do so or circumstances become beyond
their tolerance.

In Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra45 it was held that all the ingredients of this section must
exist conjunctively. There must be nexus between cruelty & harassment to raise the presumption
under section 113B of the evidence Act. When a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman & it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person

to cruelty or harassment for, in connection with any demand for dowry the court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death46.

43
Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 689
44
AIR 2016 SC 125
45
1995 Cr.LJ 3706
46
Section 113B of IEA,1872
There are certain essentials which should be proved to raise the presumption under section 113B
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The essentials are:

1. When the accused is tried for the offence under section 304B.
2. The woman has subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives
3. Such cruelty or harassment was for in connection with any demand for dowry.
4. Such cruelty or harassment was taking place before her death.47

In the present case the accused were tried for the offence of dowry death as the deceased was
subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relative for the demand of dowry. Such cruelty ended
up in excessive consumption of sleeping pills and ultimately the death of the deceased. The
presumption should also be drawn out from the conduct of husband and his relatives. In the case
at hand she was not allowed to have conversation with her parents and she has bruises on her
body.

The Supreme Court ruled out that harassment one month before death held to be covered by the
words “soon before”.48 Also the words “Soon before” cannot be limited to fixed time limit. 49 This
expression cannot be taken into narrower view, in one of the case Supreme Court consider 3
years before demand for dowry to be covered by “soon before”50

In a case of dowry death Supreme Court Observed:

Section 304B of the IPC and the cognate provisions are meant for eradication of the social evil of
dowry, which has been the bane of Indian society and continues unabated in spite of
emancipation of women and the women's liberalization movement.51 In case of K. Prema S. Rao
v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao52 the Appellants like to reiterate the rider enunciated by the Supreme
Court to the effect that "the Legislature has by amending the Penal Code and Evidence Act made
Penal Law more strident for dealing with punishing offences against married women.

47
Keshab Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, 1995 Cr.LJ 174 (Ori)
48
Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 3391
49
Kailash v. State of MP, AIR 2007 SC 107
50
Satya Narayan Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 689
51
(1991) 4 SCC 298
52
AIR 2003 SC 11
Even the report of the Joint Committee of Parliament quoted the observations of Jawaharlal
Nehru to indicate the role of legislation in dealing with the social evil as under:

“Legislation cannot be itself normally solve deep rooted social problems. One has to approach
them in other ways too, but legislation is necessary and essential, so that it may give that push
and have those educative factors as well as the legal sanctions behind it which help opinion to
be given a certain shape”53

Supreme Court had done its best is eradicating this social evil of dowry death by directing all
trial court to ordinarily add section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so that death sentences can
be imposed in such heinous & barbaric crimes against woman.54

In cases of dowry death conduct of accused55 and surrounding circumstances can prove a fact.
Statements accompanying or explaining conduct are also relevant as part of the conduct itself.
Previous conduct of the accused can be inferred from the evidence given under section 304B.
Also it is important to note that the accused were present at place of occurrence, which can be
corroborated by the testimony of various witnesses. The conduct of being last seen with the
deceased is relevant.56 Where once it is established that the husband (accused) was with his wife
at the place of occurrence and when there is no explanation as to how he parted his company
with her then it lends assurance to the evidence of eye witness as to the manner of occurrence. 57
In the present case only accused husband had seen the deceased before her death and there were
no proper evidence to show that he was not at home or on a morning walk.

Circumstances of the case

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that it is one of the established principles of law
that a witness may lay the facts but not the circumstances.58 Direct evidence is not necessary for
proving the person behind the crime, and in many cases this Hon’ble Court proved a person
guilty by circumstantial evidences. So far as this instant case is concerned there are witnesses &
none of them was eye witness & it does not affect the case because justice is sought on ardent
53
202nd Law Commission Report
54
AIR 2011 SC 568
55
Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
56
Kansa Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR1987 SC 1507
57
Darshan Singh v State of Punjab, 1955 SCC (Cri) 702
58
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111
principles of law. In the present case the judgment of High Court was correct as they relied upon
the post mortem report and the oral statements by the deceased parents.

There are contradictions in the statement of accused and post mortem report and accused
husband was also unable to provide any evidence that at the time of death of deceased he was not
at home.

Supreme Court had laid down certain principles on circumstantial evidence:59

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be
and not merely "may be" fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and,
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Statements of Charan Singh and his family are corroborating evidence but their statements are
conclusive in nature do not create any contradiction. Men may lie but the circumstances do not,
is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence.60 The overall circumstances unerringly point
towards the guilt of the accused, the deceased was harassed and tortured for dowry which
resulted in excessive consumption of sleeping pills and ultimately the death of deceased. The
accused was not able to prove that he was not present at the place of occurrence & deceased was
also last seen in the company of accused as she was in her matrimonial home. So the burden of
proving the fact lies upon the accused & also the circumstances in which the deceased met her
death. The SC ruled out that in number of cases, in which it would be impossible for the
prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within knowledge of the accused.
The burden of proving the case then lies on the accused.61

59
Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
60
Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111
61
Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404
In the present case by the circumstantial evidence & witnesses’ statement clearly established that
the accused had committed dowry death as deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by
the accused and his relatives.

CASE IS PROVED BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT

It is humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that present case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The general rule is that a party who desires to move the court must prove all
facts necessary for that purpose62. In the present case the burden of proving that accused had not
committed the offence of cruelty & dowry death lies on the accused. 63. It has been established in
leading judicial precedents that where the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence,
only the circumstantial evidence of the highest order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal
prosecution64

Where the dowry death occurred in the in-laws place, the onus was laid on the inmates of the
house to explain the circumstances of the tragic end of the life of the married woman. 65 If there
was proof that the accused (husband) ill-treated his wife. His presence at the place of occurrence
was also proved. His wife was last seen in his company. The Court said that this could be taken
into consideration to convict him. Each & every circumstance was pointing the finger of guilt
towards the accused.66

In the above mentioned facts it is clearly stated that the crime was committed by the accused &
not by the any other person. It is clearly establishing the chain of circumstantial evidence. There
is no doubt in this as to “may have committed or has committed” 67 the prosecution has
established this by legal, reliable & unimpeachable evidence for conviction to be upheld. Also in
the present case there is no two views are possible.

62
Section 101 of IEA,1872
63
Mallella Shyamsunder v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 486
64
Bhim Singh and another v State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281
65
Kundala Bala Subranayam v. State of AP, (1993) 2 SCC 684
66
State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Anandrao, 2002 Cr.LJ 4198 (Bom)
67
Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State Of U.P. 2001 CriLJ 1384
Therefore, in the light of above mentioned reasons it is humbly submitted before this Honorable
Court that the charge under section 304B is applicable and the decision of High Court of
Rajasthan in convicting the appellants must be upheld

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly

submits that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and:

TO HOLD

1. That the decision of High Court was Correct.

 2. That the Appellants are Guilty of Offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C., 1860.

TO SET ASIDE

1. Appeal filed by Appellants.

MISCELLANEOUS

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and good Conscience

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

The Respondents

SD/-

……………………

(Counsel for the Respondents)