UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY

BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS

Case No. ................................ Of 2023

THE STATE
(Prosecution)

VS.

SURESH, DINESH & SHALINI

(DEFENCE)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE SESSION JUDGE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) List of abbreviations
2) Index of authorities
. Table of cases
. Websites
. Books
. Statutes
3) Statement of jurisdiction
4) Statement of facts
5) Statements of issues
6) Summary of arguments
7) Argument advance
- Issues
i) Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 304-B?
ii) Whether the offence under section 201 r/w section 34 has been
committed?
8) Prayer
 Index of authorities
CASE LAWS:
Devendra singh Vs State of uttarakhand(2022)
Satbir singh and others Vs State of Haryana(2021)
State of Bihar versus Nasruddin Mian(2021)
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1952)
Nathu v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 575, para 1)
WEBSITES:
 www.blogipleaders.com
 www.casemine.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.lawoctopus.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com

BOOKS:

Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Indian Penal Code (36 th edition), LexisNexis

STATUTES:

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Dowry prohibition act,1961
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. & – and
2. Cr.pc – Code of Criminal Procedure
3. Cs. – Case
4. Hon’ble – Honorable
5. IPC – Indian Penal Code
6. No. – number
7. Sec. – section
8. u/ – under
9. u/s – under section
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICRTION
The petitioner has invoked its jurisdiction under section 26 of code of
criminal procedure, 1973. In response to which the accused humbly
submits this memorandum for defense before this learned court. It sets
forth the fact and the laws on which the claims are based.
 Section 26 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
26. Courts by which offences are triable. Subject to the other provisions
of this Code,-
(a) Any offence under the IPC (45 of 1860 ), may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or
(ii) The Court of Session, or
(iii) Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First
Schedule to be triable;
(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned
in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is
so mentioned, may be tried by-
(i) The High Court, or
(ii) Any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First
Schedule to be triable.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
• BACKGROUND:
The deceased Sharda D/O Vikram married to Suresh S/O Dinesh
on 17.07.2018. Both studied M.B.A. in same college where they fell in
love with each other. Dinesh is a high-profile industrialist and Vikram is
a rich businessman, having chain of departmental stores. Both the
families knew each other. Dinesh demanded dowry of substantial value,
commensurate with his social status and demanded to spend minimum
of Rs. 1 crore on the wedding apart from dowry. On 17.07.2018, the day
of marriage agreed dowry was paid to entire satisfaction of the family.
• INCIDENT:
Sharda did not receive proper treatment from her in laws. Shalini,
mother-in-law of Sharda made continuous Dowry demand for Mercedes
Benz and for F.D. of Rs. 1 Crore. However, a F.D. of Rs. 25 Lakh in the
name of Sharda was given by Vikram. Sharda gave birth to a baby girl.
Sharda was a sensitive girl. Her In-laws were not happy and was cursing
Sharda. She was cursed, rebuked, and sent to parental house.
On 20.05.2020 Suresh reached his in-laws. He sought consent of Sharda
and she returned to her matrimonial home. On 24.05.2020 Dinesh
purchased Organophosphorus from the nearest shopkeeper on the pretext
that he required the same to kill the flies. On 25.05.2020, Shalini
forcibly administered poison to the deceased Sharda to kill her. Suresh
also held the body of deceased physically and forced her to drink.
During administration of poison deceased struggled and sustained
injuries on her face, lips, and neck. Sharda died at the Hospital. Doctors
opined that death of deceased was caused due to organophosphorus
poisoning.
• AFTERMATH:
Sharda did not name anyone as responsible for administering poison and
there is no evidence to prove that poison was in possession of the three
accused.
Vikram lodged a report at the Police Station mentioning the harassment
caused by the three accused to the deceased for dowry. He stated that all
the three accused namely Dinesh, Shalini and Suresh had forcibly
administered poison with intention to kill his daughter for non-fulfilment
of further demand of dowry.
The accused took plea that the deceased was never mal treated on any
account and was treated as daughter of the family only. Their
submission was supported by the testimony of the neighbouring family
also.
Dinesh, Suresh and Shalini are prosecuted u/s 302,304-B, 498A, 201 r/w
sec.-34 of I.P.C.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
If this may please this learned court in interest of justice & on account of
the reason of necessity and brevity , this learned bench is empowered to
address the following issues, provided as here under:
ISSUE 1:
Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 304-B of
IPC?
ISSUE 2:
Whether the offence under section 201 r/w section 34 has been
committed?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE: 1
Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 304-B of
IPC?
Accused persons are not liable to be convicted under section 304-B of
IPC as the essentials required to establish an offence under this section
are not satisfied. The deceased was never maltreated as keeping in mind
the facts and circumstances and was treated as the daughter of the
family.
This statement was supported by the testimony of the neighbouring
family.

ISSUE: 2
Whether the act of accused falls under section 201 r/w section 34 of
IPC?
The act of accused does not fall u/s 201 r/w sec34 of IPC as the
ingredients of the offence are not being met. The Sharda being taken to
the hospital and Sharda not naming anyone responsible for administering
poison, implies that the accused are not liable u/s 201 r/w sec 34 of IPC.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE: 1
Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under section 304-B of
IPC?
 ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 304-B ARE NOT SATISFIED

The acts of the accused does not fall u/s 304-B of IPC.To establish the
offence u/s 304B. Dowry death.—

(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. Explanation.—For the purpose of
this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

- It is alleged that Sharda did not receive proper treatment from her in
laws and there was continuous demand for dowry after marriage,
however “a F.D. of Rs. 25 Lakh was given to Sharda by Vikram”.
“Sharda was a sensitive girl”. Sharda gave birth to a baby and went to
her parent’s house. “She came back to her matrimonial home with her
own consent”.
“Dinesh purchased Organophosphorus from the nearest shopkeeper, to
kill the flies”. After some banter some banter between the deceased and
her mother-in-law, the deceased being a sensitive girl tried to commit
suicide. Unbeknownst to the whole family the deceased ingested the
pesticide her father-in-law had bought a day before to kill the flies. The
pesticide was “organophosphorus”. Organophosphorus as a poison
causes a person diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, confusion, and muscle
tremors.
So, because of the affect of the organophosphorus which causes nausea,
confusion and muscle tremors, the deceased must have got hurt.
• In Devendra singh Vs State of uttarakhand, it was established
that for conviction under section 304B of IPC, the essentials under
this section must be fulfilled. Which clearly are not being fulfilled.
• In Satbir singh and others Vs State of Haryana , The Supreme
Court held that the expression “soon before death” cannot imply
“exactly before death.” The Bench went on to say that there must
be a direct and ongoing relationship between the dowry death and
the husband’s and his relatives’ cruelty or harassment.
Here, Sharda coming coming back to her matrimonial home with her
own consent is the proof to this above mentioned statement that there
was no cruelty inflicted upon her.
• In State of Bihar versus Nasruddin Mian, the High Court of
Patna held that the Supreme Court has frequently concentrated on
the same point, namely, that courts and judges must conduct a
dispassionate review of evidence. And that courts and judges
 should not be motivated by the horror of the crime or the character
of the offender when giving judgement.
The High Court of Patna further considered that if legally acceptable
evidence are not present because the prosecution had failed to establish
the motive beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a case of murder, then
only on the ‘moral ground’ that the wife had died in her matrimonial
home, that is not always enough to convict the accused persons.

ISSUE: 2
Whether the act of accused falls under section 201 r/w section 34 of
IPC?
 ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 201 IPC IS NOT ESTABLISHED

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving

false information to screen offender. This Section comprises two aspects
which include the disappearance of evidence and giving false
information with the intention of screening the offender from legal
consequences.

• in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab: “In order to establish the

charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that
an offence has been committed, — mere suspicion that it has been
committed is not sufficient — that the accused knew or had reason
to believe that such offence had been committed and with the
requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from
legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives
false information respecting such offences knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be false.”
• in Nathu v. State of U.P. this Court has repeated the caution in the
following words: (SCC p. 575, para 1) “Before a conviction under
Section 201 can be recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction
of the court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an
offence had been committed and having got this knowledge, tried
to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body.”

• Having thus analyzed the legal position, we shall revert to the

factual matrix and see whether the conviction in the facts and
circumstances of the case under Section 201 of the IPC could be
sustained.

According to the factual matrix of the case and in accordance with the
case Nathu vs State of U.P it must be shown to the satisfaction of the
court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence
had been committed and having got this knowledge, tried to screen
the offender by disposing of the dead body.

However according to the facts of the case, it’s evident that accused
did not try to dispose off the deceased, instead after seeing their
daughter-in-law sick, that immediately rushed her to the hospital.

And in accordance with the case Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

it is established that, the poison was not found in possession of any of
the three accused and mere suspicion that it has been committed is not
sufficient, to convict a person.

Besides, the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence
had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the
intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the
evidence thereof to disappear, but there was no such case as it was the
husband and his father and mother were the one who took the
deceased to the hospital.
 Since section 34 is a rule of evidence and does not mention any
separate offence. The punishment under section 34 will be
combined with the crime committed by the convict.
 PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced & authorities
cited, the defence humbly prays before this learned Court, to be
graciously pleased to:

• Acquit the accused of the charges u/s 304B of IPC

• Release the accused from charges pressed u/s 201 r/w section 34 of
IPC.
• pass any other order the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the light of
justice, equity & good conscience.

For this kindness, the defence, as duty bound as ever shall humbly pray.

Counsel for defence

Suresh & others