BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

In the matter of

STATE OF KARNATAKA …………...……………PROSECUTION

Versus

ISHAAN AHLLUWALIA …………………………………DEFENCE

UNDER SECTION 176 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

PAGE

S.NO. TITLE No.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8

5. ISSUES OF CONSIDERATION 9

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11

8. PRAYER 30
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SHORT FORMS FULL FORMS

AIR All India Reporter

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

FIR First Information Report

IPC Indian Penal Code

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SEC Section

Vs. Versus

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Crl Criminal

Bom Bombay

Ltd Limited

Maha Maharashtra

Ors Others

Anr Another

ART Article
 Pvt Private

CO Company

& And

Hon’ble Honourable

Rep Represented

RAJ(SC) Recent Arbitration Judgements (SC)

BOOKS

1. K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code

ARTICLES

CASE LAWS

1. Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

LEGAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Indian Kanoon

Casemine
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

According to Section 176 in the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried
by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS,

1. Ishika Behl (35) was a software engineer at Infosys Ltd. She was a resident of a posh
society 'The Palms Residency' of Vaishali Hills, Bengaluru. Ishika's parents found a well suitable
boy Ishaan Ahluwalia (37), who was running a self-sustained business in exports.

2. Ishika and Ishaan Ahluwalia married under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Ishika was
asked by her In-laws to quit her job and start looking after child nurturing. A year later, the
couple was blessed with a daughter named Ahaana.

3. Ishika Ahluwalia's mother-in-law brainwashed her into demanding hefty presents from
her family. Every passing occasion became an obligation for Ishika to ask her parents for opulent
gestures of wealth. When the child turned 4, Ishika's husband Ishaan decided to move out of his
parent's house.

4. Ishaan’s business partner Mr. Ronit Chatterjee threatened to cancel a business tender if he
doesn't pay him the promised amount. Ishika made late-night shifts at her office to support him,
but he fought with her and compelled her to call off her job. She was forced to sell off their car
and jewellery.

5. Ritu and Harsh Deep asked Ishika to arrange for a trip with a Travel Agency. Ritu
expressed her pitiful state that she could not do much for her son, her daughter-in-law and for
Ishika. She convinced Ishika that it was a much-needed vacation for their family.
6. Ishaan's mother Ritu called Ishika and asked her to withdraw some money. Ishika could
not think straight because of what her husband was going through. She dialed at her parent's
home in Vaishali, to ask for 3.5 crores of bill.

7. Ahaana saw her mother weeping into tears while her grandmother was being loud about
something. Ishika's husband Ishaan accused her of being overprotective where Ishika got
defensive and abused him for receiving dowry from her parents.

8. Ishika then went missing after which Ishaan had gone out of the house to enquire about
Ishika’s missing to his parents, where the family then decides to enquire about Ishika's presence
at her friend's place. Ishaan panicked and decided to wait till evening as Ishika often left the
house for other reasons.

9. When nothing unravels, the family reports about Ishika's missing to the nearest police
station on 9th January 2020 around 7:30pm.

10. Ishika's parents filed a complaint against Ishaan and Ishika's In-law's for dowry and
murder of their daughter. They informed the police that Ishika started to behave in a distressed
manner, and frustration about her husband's financial failures.

11. The Post-mortem report submits that the body had been deflated due to drowning with
the assumption that the person died because of sudden trauma and unconsciousness. The Police
began the investigation on the matter and records the statements of possible witnesses.
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATIONS

The following questions are presented for adjudication in the instant matter:
1. WILL ISHAAN AHLLUWALIA BE HELD GUILTY FOR THE MURDER OF
ISHIKA AHLLUWALIA?

2. WILL ISHAAN AND HIS PARENTS BE HELD LIABLE FOR DOWRY

3. IS ISHIKA’S DEATH: MURDER OR SUCIDE?

4. IN LIGHT OF THE CRIME SCENE, IS THERE ANY ELEMENT OF

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Ishika’s death could be held to be one
of a suicidal drowing, due to the fact that the essential conditions to classify a death as murder
under section 300 IPC has not been satisfied. Also, the appellant cannot be held liable for
abetment of suicide under sections 306 of IPC, section 113 A of Indian Evidence Act, for
causation of her death under section 304 B of IPC, or for harassment under section 498A of IPC,
as the essential and primary ingredients of crime under these sections are not fulfilled in this
case.
1.1 That Ishika’s death is a case of suicidal drowning :
As per post mortem report, Ishika’s death was caused as a result of hypoxia due to drowning.
There was Anoxic cerebral injury found which can be from asphyxiation due to drowning. Also,
there is no signs of other types of internal cerebral injury due to any other external cause other
than hypoxic injury. In addition, the other post mortem finding of alveolar lung damage strongly
indicates drowning as the cause of death. Therefore, it is clearly evident that Ishika’s death is
caused due to drowning.

Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act, culpable
homicide is considered as murder if: 1. The act is committed with an intention to cause death. 2.
The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has
knowledge that it would result in death. 3. The person has the knowledge that his act is
dangerous and would cause death or bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to
murder. None of the above said conditions are satisfied in this case due to the clear absence of
intent, and hence the death cannot be accounted to be one of homicidal drowning.

1.2 That the appellant cannot be held liable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code for abetment
of suicide :
1. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code states ‘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.’
2. Abetment means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence. The
word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act
and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggest or stimulates him to the act by
any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of
hints, insinuation or encouragement. Offence under section 306 IPC would not be made out
because there was no abetment on part of the accused of instigating the deceased to commit
suicide soon before her death and hence cannot be convicted of the charge of abetment of
suicide. It is to be made clear that a specific allegation must be made as to what particular act
was done by the accused which may be interpreted as an act of abetment. In order to constitute
abetment, the abettor must be shown to have ‘intentionally aided the commission of crime’.
Also, an essential element of the offense under this section is the presence of mens rea, or the
direct intent to commit the crime. Here, the appellant had no active intention to lead the deceased
to death or drive her into committing suicide. There should be evidence capable of
suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the
accused cannot be convicted under Section 306  IPC. In Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP1, it
was held that conviction for abetment merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased is
not punishable. For committing the offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be some intention
and some positive act on the part of the accused to instigate the victim or to aid her in
committing the suicide. The lady was harassed and ill-treated by her husband, who refused to
accompany her to her parents' house for celebration of a festival. Therefore, she committed
suicide by setting herself to fire. It was held that accused husband was not blamed anywhere at
any stage, so it could not be said that he in any way had instigated her to commit suicide.
Also, in State Vs. Sunil Kumar2, it was held that mere quarreling with the wife would not amount
to abetment. In the same way mere misbehavior on the part of the accused cannot be equated
with abetment.
Paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Court in the case of Sarvesh vs. State of U.P3, states that ‘It
is of the essence of the crime to make out the offence of abetment of suicide that the abettor
should be proved to have substantially assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide. Stray
domestic quarrels, perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law in the Indian
society, crude and uncultured behaviours by the in-laws or the husband towards his wife being
mundane matters of normal occurrence in the traditional joint Hindu families, will not go to form
and constitute 'abetment' unless these acts of conduct singly or cumulatively, are found to be of
such formidable and compelling nature as may lead to the commission of suicide or may
facilitate in a singular and prime manner, the commission of the same.’
1.3 That the appellant cannot be held guilty under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 :
3. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 is as follows – ‘Presumption as to abetment of
suicide by a married woman - When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she
had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume,
having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or by such relative of her husband.’
Even under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, it was necessary that death should have occurred
within seven years of the marriage for invocation of the said provision for presumption as to
abetment of suicide by a married woman, but even that period of seven years had already
expired.

1
1995 SCC 1157
2
1997 Crl.L.J. (2014)
3
2017 SCC 39
1.4 That the accused cannot be held liable for causation of death under section 304 B of IPC:
4. Section 304 B of IPC talks about dowry deaths- (1) 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 called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be
deemed to have caused her death.
(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.

However, the essential elements of offense under this includes that the death should be caused

by burns or bodily injury or by any other circumstances, and that it must occur within seven

years of marriage. Hence, the accused cannot be held guilty under this section.

1.5 That the accused cannot be charged under section 498 A of IPC:

6. Section 498 A IPC talks about ‘Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—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 purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any willful 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 a 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.’

The essentials of this section includes any willful or intentional conduct on a woman to cause her
injury or to instigate her to commit suicide.
Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise
relevant, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for
entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.
In Thangappandian Vs. State4, it was held that each and every misunderstanding of petty quarrel
between husband and wife cannot be included within the term of cruelty. So where there was no
4
1998, Crl.L.J. 993
evidence that willful conduct of the husband was of such a nature as likely to drive his wife to
commit suicide, the accused was entitled to the acquittal of offence under section 498A IPC. 

4. In Light of the Crime Scene, Is there any element of suspicion of a third party?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in light of the crime scene, it can be
stated that, there may or may not be the involvement of a third party.

4.1 Ishika may have had intended to meet somebody after leaving the bar:

As per the statement of the bartender Nitesh Krishnan of skyway bar, Ishika was seen to leave
the bar with 2 bottles of beer and two bottles of Whiskey, suggesting the fact that she could have
been on her way to meet someone, but cannot be said with certainty.
Also, as per the report of the Investigating Officer, two glasses along with 2
completely finished bottles of beer was found near the crime scene. This could hint the presence
of a third party, however this does not necessarily imply that a third party was involved in the
death of the deceased.