MOOT COURT

Name : Nikhil khaleefa

SRN : R19BL079

Class : B.B.A LL.B 4TH SEM

Submitted To : Ms. Meera

 Before The Hon’ble High court of Palmgrove

IN THE MATTER OF

Ankita , Aneesh ………………………………………………………………………….. Plaintiff

V.

State of palmgrove …………………………………………………………………………… Respondent

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 Table of contents

1.List of abbrevations

2.Statement of jurisdiction

3.Statement of facts

4. Issues raised

5.Statement of arguments

6.Arguments advanced

7.Prayer and conclusion

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 List Of Abbrevations

1. Art - Article

2. Sec - Section

3. V. - Verous

4. Hon’ble - Honarouble

5. MPC - Manglore penal code

6. AIR - All India reporter

7. Ors - Others

8. MVA - Manglore evidence act

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 WEBSITES REFERRED

https: // www .lawaudience.com

https: // www. legablities.in

https: // www. Indiankanoon. org

https: // www. Indiatoday. com

https://www.casemine.com

CASES REFERRED

Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 762

State v. Diwanji Gardharji and Or

Raja Lal Singh v. the State of Jharkhan

Pawan Kumar v. the State of Haryana

sangaraboina Sreenu V. state of A.P

STATUTES REFERRED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Anjali was a 25-year-old girl who was working as a professor in Queensland college, in the state of
Palmgrove . she got into a relationship with Aneesh a professor from the same college he was 27 years old.
Aneesh was a rich guy but Anjali belonged to a middle-class family. Anjali introduced Aneesh to her parents
and they agreed to get her married to him and they both tied the knot as per Hindu rites on January 15, 2020,
Anjali moved to Anish’s place after marriage

Anjali and Aneesh both lived a happy and peaceful life together until her first child. when she gave birth to
her daughter Girija, Aneesh‘s mother started to constantly insult and taunt Anjali for being brought up in a
poor family and coming and living with his son, and ruining their money and lifestyle.

Ankita [ mother-in-law ] of Anjali blamed her for the business loss which occurred after Anjali enters the
family. she stated her to be a sign of bad luck because of which they had a huge loss in the business which
later had to be shut down due to immense debt of the company. Ankita told her daughter-in-law to get a sum
of 20 lakhs from her parents. Anjali was very much frustrated and depressed.

Later Anish started to drink a lot Aneesh started to insult his wife for being born into a family of a beggar.
Anjali after all these insults in one such occasion slit her wrist but was later saved by her sister-in-law.
Ankita took her to the psychiatrist and the physician prescribed some medicines be taken and also told her to
go and stay in her parent's house for some time.

later she gave birth to a second child named Sita .this ruined her lifestyle even more as she was insulted and
beaten physically also many times by her husband due to financial crisis .

On February 8, 2021, a few neighbors so Anjali Running from her mother in laws house with fire in her
dupatta and she fell on the road and few passers-by quenched the fire she has succumbed to 90 % of burn
injuries.

Her mother-in-law Stated to the neighbors that Anjali was mentally ill and didn’t know what she was up to
and also stated that Anjali ruined the happiness of her son Aneesh.

Anjali was taken to the hospital before the sub-Inspector of police and few doctors she gave her dying
declaration which mentioned her mother-in-law was the one who set her on fire and also stated she was
tortured physically by her husband.

She died two hours later after the statement. Ankita and Anish were arrested and taken before the trial
court .The court gave the order in favor of Anjali and sentenced them under sections 302, 304B, and 306 of
the Mangalore penal code. Anish appeal to the High Court.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 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 SUCIDE
AS PER SECTION 306 OF MPC?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY ANKITA AND ANEESH IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High court that the appeal filed by the appellants Ankita and Aneesh is
not maintainable. It is humbly submitted that all the appellants were given a fair trial, they were also given a fair
opportunity to respond to the contention against them. It is the well-settled practice of the High court that except
where there has been illegality or any irregular procedure or violation of the principle of natural justice resulting
in the absence of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the High court does not permit for another view or
trial of the case. This case lacks sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the appeal, thus in this case there is no
need for a review of the case as the judgment of the trial court is fair, just, and according to law.

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 Sec 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
called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ANKITA AND ANEESH WERE LIABLE FOR MURDER AS PER SECTION
302 OF MPC ?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that both the accused are liable for section 302 of MPC
states that Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine. as in this case, the committed, offense is the burning of the deceased which caused her death.

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ANKITA AND ANEESH WERE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUCIDE 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.

 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

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 led by the appellants shall not be allowed
by the Hon'ble High court because there wasn't 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, AIR 2010 SC 762, where the High court or any
lower court takes a plausible view in acquitting the accused from murder, the SC needs not incline to take a
different view in the exercise of its jurisdiction

Also in the case State v. Diwanji Gardharji and Ors on 6 October 1961, there was a preliminary objection that
was raised that appeal is not maintainable since criminal appeal no.645 of 1960 led 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 called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
In order to attract the application of section 304-B of MPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:
1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstance
2. Such a 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 the demand for dowry
5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman, soon before her death

All these ingredients are hereby ful lled in the present case, the deceased was exposed to harassment and asked
for the sum of 20 lakhs. She was tortured verbally and physically at her in-law's house. She was harassed
mentally as well.

It was observed in Raja Lal Singh v. the State of Jharkhand, that the expression soon before death occurring in
section 304-B MPC is an elastic term. It can refer to a period either immediately before the death of the deceased
or within a few days or few weeks before death. What is relevant is there should be a perceptible nexus between
the death of the deceased and dowry-related harassment or cruelty in icted on the woman concerned. Anjali was
set on re by her husband and mother-in-law on 8 2021 that was also witnessed by neighbors and before that also
she was continuously be beaten up by her husband and mentally tortured by her mother-in-law by forcing her to
bring money from her parents’ home

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

fi
.

fl
fi
 

fi
.

In Pawan Kumar v. the State of Haryana, the deceased wife of the appellant died in burn injuries within seven years of
marriage. The wife committed suicide because of mental cruelty and maltreatment at the hands of her husband on account
of the non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The supreme court held the appellant liable for causing dowry death under
section 304B and section 498A as well as for abetting suicide under section 306, MPC as because of his treatment the
wife had committed suicide.

Wherein, the present case as well the wife was exposed to cruelty which led her to try to commit suicide, but she was
saved by her sister-in-law. All the demands from the deceased in-laws and insults affected her in such a way that she took
the drastic step.She got married to Aneesh on 15 January 2020 and was set on fire on 8 February 2021 which caused her
death that was under a year of her marriage. The deceased gave her dying statement 2 hours before her death which is
valid based on evidence of the deceased’s father and the dying declaration which is admissible under section 32 of the
evidence act.

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 section 302MPC states that whoever has committed
murders shall be punished either with imprisonment for life or the death penalty along with time. She gave her
dying declaration which mentioned her mother-in-law was the one who set her on re and also stated she was
tortured physically by her husband. she died two hours later after the statement.

Section-32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, Word “Dying Declaration” means a statement written or verbal of
relevant facts made by a person, who is dead. It is the statement of a person who had died explaining the
circumstances of his death.

The prior primary point of consideration for the court in matters related to murder is the intention and motive of
the accused this is why the motive and intention of the accused must be proved in the case under this section.

Essential ingredients which apply under section 302MPC include

All the ingredients are hereby ful lled in the present case, the deceased was exposed to harassment and asked
for a sum of 20 lacks. she was torture verbally and mentally at her in-law's hous

In the case of sangaraboina Sreenu V. state of A.P , kerosene on the body of his wife and set her on fire . The
trial court convicted the appellant under section 302MPC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

fi
.

fi
.

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED ANKITA AND ANEESH WERE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUCIDE AS
PER SECTION 306 OF MPC?

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.

The Supreme court held that the husband was responsible for creating circumstances that provoked or forced his
wife to commit suicide and he was, therefore, liable to be convicted under section 306. Similarly, both the
accused created such circumstances by harassing her mentally and demanding a large sum of amount as a dowry
that deceased was provoked to commit suicide from which she, fortunately, was saved by her sister-in-law.

In Raj Bala v. the State of Haryana, the trial judge based on the material brought on record found the accused
persons guilty of the offense punishable under section 3406 MPC. In the present case, it is mentioned the fact
that the deceased was tortured by her husband and mother-in-law can be counted as circumstantial evidence.

The supreme court held that there was consistently reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove that the accused
husband constantly harassed, humiliated, and tortured his wife for bringing insufficient dowry articles.
Therefore, the conviction of the accused under 306 MPC was held not illegal.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.

It was held in Nachhatter Singh v. the State of Punjab 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.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 PRAYERS AND CONCLUSION

Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the hon'ble
court may be pleased to declare that :

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT