BEFORE

THE HONORABLE SESSION COURT,

PANIPAT
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF
STATE…..............................................PROSECUTION
Vs.
SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS.............ACCUSED

Written Submission on behalf of the

PROSECUTION
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO CONTENT PAGE

NUMBER

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2 ACTS AND STATUTES

3 BOOKS REFERRED

4 STATEMENT OFJURISDICTION

5 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

6 STATEMENT OF FACTS

7 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND

SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC?
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE
THE COMMON INTENTION?
3) WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT OR NOT?

10 PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& : And
AIR : All India Reporter
Anr. : Another
Art. : Article
AP : Andhra Pardesh
CA : Criminal Appeal
Cr.LJ : Criminal Law Journal
Cr.PC : Code of Criminal Procedure
DD : Dying Declaration
FIR : First Information Report
HC : High Court Hon’ble : Honourable
IPC : Indian Penal Code
IEA : Indian Evidence act
MLR : Medical Report
Ors : Others
P&h : Punjab and Haryana High Court
PW : Prosecution Witness
PMR : Post Mortem Report
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court cases
SCR : Supreme Court Record
SLP : Special Leave Petition
UOI : Union of India
v. : Versus
WB : West Bengal
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
THE INDIA PENAL CODE, 1860
THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
BOOKS REFERRED:
1. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, (21st Ed., Central Law
Agency,2016 )
2. Dr. K.S. Narayana Reddy, The Essentials of Forensic
Medicine & toxicology(33rd Ed., J.P. Pubications, 2010)
3. Justice UL Bhatt, Lectures on Indian Evidence Act,
(Universal Law Publication,2015)
4. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed.,
Lexis Nexis,2009)
5. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law
Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016 )
6. N.K. Acharya, Protection of Woman From Domestic
Violence Act, (6th Ed. Asia Law House, 2013)
7. Prof. Arthur Best, Wigmore on Evidence, (Aspen
Publishers; 13-Volume Ed. December 31, 1995)
8. P.K. Majumdar and R.P. Kataria, Law Relating to
Dowry Prohibition Cruelty and Harassment (3rd Ed. Orient
Publication, 2015)
9. Ramjeth Malani & DS Chopra, The Indian Penal Code
(Vol. II, Thomson Reuters)
10. Ram Shelkar, Law Relating To Dowry Death (1st Ed.,
Kamal Publishers, 2010)
11. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd
Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
12. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, Law of Evidence (25th Ed.,
Lexis Nexis, 2013)
13. Ratanlal & Dheerajlal, The Code of Criminal
Procedure (20th Ed., Lexis Nexis 2016)
14. R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
15. SC Sarker, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (3rd Ed.,
Dwivedi Law Agency, 2014)
16. SC Sarker, The Code of Criminal Procedure: An
Encyclopaedic Commentary on the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973(11th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
 LIST OF CASES: -
1. Mannu Raja v. State of MP AIR 1976 SC 2199
2. State of Up v. Ram Sagar Yadav AIR 1976 SC 2199
3. Kundula Bala subrahmanayam v. State of AP 1990 Crl.J 1666(AP)
4. Meesla Ram Krishna v State of AP (1994) 4 SCC 684
5. Charipalli Shankar Rao v PP, HC of AP 2001 CrLJ
NOC 158(Del)
6. Najma Faraghi V. State of West Bengal AIR 1998 SC 682
7. Gopali Devi v. State(Govt of NCT Delhi) AIR 1985 SC 416
8. Panchdo singh v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC526
9. L.K Naiak v State 2013 CrLJ 1792
(CHH)
10. Desh Deepak Kapoor v. State (Delhi Adminstration)
(2006)92DRJ440(DB)
11. Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73
12. A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar (2005) 2 SCC 22
13. Parveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta 2002
14. P. Bikshapati v. State of A.P 1989 Cri. L.j. 1186
(A.P)
15. Malathi Ravi v. B.V.Ravi (2014) 7 SCC 395
16. Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal AIR 2012 SC 3539
17. Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura AIR 2011 SC 3753
18. Ramashish Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 (8) SC555
19. State of Punjab v. Fauja Singh 1997
20. Bhola Turha v/s State of Bihar AIR 1998 SC 1515
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Session Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter
under Section 1771, Section 262 read with Section 2093 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973

1
Section 177: ‘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’.
2
Section 26:‘ Courts by which offences are triable
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,-
a) Any offence under the Indian Penal code (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 in shown in the first Schedule to be
triable;
b) Any offence under any 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
tried’.
3
Section 209 ‘Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable
exclusively by it- When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused
appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence
is triable exclusively by the Court of Session he shall
a) Commit the case to the Court of session;
b) Subject to the provisions of this Code
relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, anduntil the conclusion of, the trial;
c) Send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are
to be produced in evidence;
d) Notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court ofSession.’
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Arundhati Kumar was a 22 years old girl who was pursuing her
degree from Geeta college of engineering, Naultha. She came close with
a friend and batch mate, Shikhar Singh who also a brilliant student. He
was a luxurious lifestyle while Arundhati was belong to a middle class
background. Their families were introduced to each other.
2. In 9th November 2010, they got married according to Hindu rities.
She had some differences with her in laws on many occasions but the
matter was mostly settled amicably. Shikhar wanted to maintain his high
life style which saw the family in a near financial crisis.
3. In 11th December 2012, Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl. Shikhar
took a loan from Arundhati’s Parents and later he refused to return.
When Shikhar was in drunken state, he used to blame Arundhati to
calling ‘barren woman’ and family of beggars. This remarks hurt her a
lot and once she even tried to slit her wrists and end her life but she was
saved by her sister-in-law. After the incident the Doctor or Physician did
prescribe some medicines for Arundhati and also advised her to consult
a psychiatrist. She went to her parent’s home and told Shikhar that she
would never return. But her parents convinced her to return to her in
laws
4. In 10th April 2014, Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy which lead the
family to a financial mess. Shikhar was very disturbed because of these
financial complications. She was more agitated and suffering from the
depression as well as mood swings. On 9th November 2014 written a
suicide note by Arundhati.
5. In 4th January 2015, neighbours saw Arundhati running out of the
house with her sari on fire. Her mother-in-law was running after her
shouting that Arundhati was out of her mind to do something. She
collapsed on the road. Then she was taken to hospital and admitted with
88%burns. Where doctors declared her unfit to record her statement
immediately.
6. In 5th January 2015, Arundhati conditions improve then the police
was called. She gave her declaration before S.I. Sohan lal at 11:00
hours. In the declaration she accused her Mother-in-law (Sarda) and
Shikhar of setting her on fire and died at 12:30 hours on the same day.
The police sent the body for post mortem examination. Police also
conducted a search of the house. Police found a suicide note written by
Arundhati on dated 9 th November 2014 and a burnt can of kerosene oil
in kitchen. Arundhati’s mother in law and husband were arrested from
the house and were arrested from the house and were sent to judicial
custody.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
-I-
WHETHER THEACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-
INLAWS) ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION
304-B OF IPC?
-II-
WHETHERTHE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-
INLAWS) ARE LIABLE FORMURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF
IPC?
-III-
WHETHERTHE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA (MOTHER-
INLAWS) ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER
SECTION 306 OF IPC?
-IV-
WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF
PUNISHMENT OR NOT?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE LIABLE
FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC OR NOT? That both
the accused persons i.e. Shikhar(husband) and Sarda (mother-in-law)
are guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC ,1860.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AMOUNT TO
AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498A OF IPC 1860 OR NOT? That
both the accused persons i.e. Shikhar(husband) and Sarda(mother-in-
law) have committed cruelty against Arundhati (deceased) and thus are
guilty of the offences under Section 498-A IPC 1860.
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE THE COMMON
INTENTION? That sarda as well as shikhar had a common intention to
commit cruelty against arundhati (the deceased) and thus both are guilty
for the common intention under section 34 ipc, 1860.
ISSUE IV
WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF
PUNISHMENT OR NOT? That, it is humble request to the learned
session court, that the brutal sarda & shikhar should be severely
punished.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA

ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?
The state would humbly submit before the learned session court.
1. The section 299 of IPC ,1860 states that “culpable homicide- whoever
cause death by doing an act with intention of causing death or with
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely by such act to cause
death, commit the offence of culpable homicide.
2. The section 300 of IPC,1860 states that,” except in the cases
hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is a murder,
i. If the fact by which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death, or
ii. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as
the offender known to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom is caused or
iii. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to a
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted in sufficient in
the ordinary cause of nature or course of death.
iv. If the person committing the Act knows that is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death or such bodily
injury as likely to cause death and commit such act without any
excuse for incurring the rick of causing death and commit such.
3. That, the combined effect of sec-299 of IPC, 1860 & sec- 300 of IPC,
1860 states that whenever a death is caused with an intention of causing
such bodily injury which is likely to cause death or by an act having the
knowledge that such an act is sufficient in ordinary course of nature that
it will cause death than the person who commit such murder.
4. The sarda & shikhar had intention of causing such a bodily injury to
decrease such that the death was the most probable result.
5. That the sarda & shikhar knew that she was depressed & she in turn
become more agitated & started suffering from depression as well as
mood swing.
6. That they planned to burn the decreased by pouring kerosene and
lighting up the fire.
7. That the presence of sarda 4 Jan 2015 highly supported the fact
establish by the prosecution
8. And, even there in-law and her husband did not provide anything to
exhaust her fire or save her life even
• Didn’t called the ambulance,
• Didn’t provide her blanket & water.
9. That this act of avoidance of the accused person clearly established
the intention of the accused person to murder the deceased, which is
further established by the fact that as situation got worsened & unless
the neighbour not the deceased and hence, it clearly indicates the
intention of the accused person of murdering the deceased.
10. That, neighbour extinguished the fire. Here, at this instance the
deceased made the dying declaration that, “I was working in the kitchen
& suddenly I felt a blast of fire on my back. In on time my saree on fire.
I saw my mother in law standing behind me so, that I ran outside for
help. My mother in law chased me so that she could stop me from
getting any help from neighbour. Then I fell on the road and both
shikhar and my mother in law did nothing to help”.
11. The dying declaration was over headed by sohan lal (sub-inspector
of policed), on 5 Jan 2014 at hospital.
12. That on the fact it is clearly mention that neighbour saw that
deceased ran out from her house and her sari on fire.
13. That the deceased was enquired by Sohan Lal (sub-inspector) at that
time deceased gave dying declaration on the same day at 11:00 hours.
14. The hon’ble supreme court in Meeslla Ram Krishna v. state of AP 4
held that “a dying declaration made by nods & gestures or by sign
languages has been held to be admissible & also on the fact of particular
case to be reliable.
15. The hon’ble Chhattisgarh high court in L.K Nayak v/s State5 has
held that, “evidence of relatives or related witness cannot be rejected in
TOTO on the ground of their relation, relative are last person to spare
the real culprit & implicate & innocence falsely”.
16. That it was very crucial to notice that incident happened at that time,
where there is no medical assistance given to the deceased, nor did the
accused person avail any medical assistance for the deceased. It was
only called by neighbor for medical assistance.
17. That sarda & shikhar didn’t actively participate in saving the
deceased person neither at the time when deceased was engulfed in fire,
nor after the fire was extinguished hence, did they always abstain from
assisting by any means so as to save the deceased. This intention or
attitude clearly indicates that the accused person didn’t want the
deceased to survive. So, they left no stone unturned to murder her.
18. According to the medical report, the burns of the body of the
deceased were 88% which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause a death of a person. The evidence gathered are:-
• Dying declaration made by deceased to shoan lal(sub-inspector of
police)
• Presence of accused at crime spot.
• A burnt cane of kerosene oil in kitchen.
19. That for the evidence and said fact Hon’ble Supreme Court had
delivered many judgments.
20. That Hon’ble SC in Najma Faraghi v state of west Bengal6 , it was
held that dying declaration would not lose a value on the ground that a
maker died after making the statement the question of relevance has to
be consider on the fact of each case.
5
2013 CrLJ 1792 (CHH)
6
AIR 1998 SC 682
21. The fact of the deceased has 88% of burn injuries & there was no
chance is too relevant.
22. Hon’ble SC in Pancho singh v. state of Bihar7 , held that the
statement in truth worthy or more attempt to cover up latches of
investigation. Dying declaration which inspires confidence is a
sufficient piece of evidence to sustain conviction. It is not necessary that
declaration should be of longish nature & nearly structured”.
23. The fact that the dying declaration which is given to sohan lal (sub-
inspector of police) is sufficient enough to inspire confidence in itself &
thus, it is very strong evidence against the accused.
24. That, the hon’ble SC in Mannu Raja v/s State of MP8 , held that
there is neither rule of law nor of procedure that a dying declaration
cannot be acted upon without corporation & again hon’ble SC in State
of UP v/s Ram Sagar Yadav9 held that,” if the court is satisfied that
dying declaration is true & voluntary it can base conviction without
corporation which was followed in Gopal Devi v/s State Govt. of NCT
Delhi10. Here, the declaration of declassed is very much reliable, as it
has been given with free consent& without any threating as per Sec-32
(1) of Indian evidence act, 1872.
25. That the hon’ble SC in Charipali Shankar Rao v/s PP HC of 11AP
held that an injured person making his or her dying declaration is not
expected to make an elaborate of executive statement so as to cover
each & every aspect of the incident in the case the person was under the
pain & agony of 90% burn. Similarly here, where as per the fact, the
body of deceases was burned upto 88% burn, expecting everything and
every name indying declaration is not prudent.
26. That the hon’ble SC in Bhola Turha v/s State of Bihar 12 held that,”
dying declaration found to be reliable, no in consistence with testimony
of eye witness conviction of caused proper”.
7 10
AIR 2002 SC526 AIR 1985 SC 416
8 11
AIR 1976 SC 2199 2001 CrLJ NOC 158(Del
9
AIR 1976 SC 2199
27. That for the above mention reason had a murder. So they should be
punished and held guilty for all the offences.
 ISSUE II WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON
AMOUNT TO AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498 A OF IPC
1860 OR NOT?
The state would humbly submit before the learned session court.
The S-498A of IPC state that husband or relative of Husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty- whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband or woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 yrs.’
& shall also be liable to find. The explanation of 498(A) state that, for
the purpose of this section,” cruelty” means-
• Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause gave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or
• 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.
1. That, as per section 216 of Cr.P.C, 1973 court is at discretion to
alter the charges at any stage before judgment, & in accordance to
which, the prosecution would request the court to alert the charge
sheet & add sec-498A of IPC,1860.
2. That, in furtherance of afore-stated sec, the acts of the accused
person is liable to be punished on reasonable grounds which are
mentioned below.
3. Parveen mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta 13that, “ Mental cruelty is a
state of 4. mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the
behaviour or behavioral pattern by the other”
5. That, the shikhar subjected the deceased to cruelty. Her cruelty
includes mental torture as per explanation 498A of the IPC.
 6. That, the fact sheet clearly mentioned that shikhar Singh who
has a luxurious lifestyle while the deceased was the somber girl
from middle class background. In 2009, they both were introduced
each other to their family & on 9th Nov2010 they got happily
married & she moved into her matrimonial home with Shikhar’s
family.
7. With the passage of time, the cruelty, the taunting & the
maltreatment of husband started and increased day by day. 8. I’d
like to draw the attention towards The deceased was always
subjected to the mental cruelty. Her cruelty include mental torture
which is evident from the below mentioned facts.
9. That, out of several instances, some of most pathetic/ cruel
instances- (1) The 1st incident was when she got so broken by the
cruelty of shikhar that she ties to commit suicide by slitting her
wrist. (2) When she was killed by the accused by burning.
10. According to the fact sheet, shikhar wanted to maintain his high
life style, which shows the family in near family crises.
11. After the birth of baby girl shikhar took the loan from
arundhati’s parents of Rs 5 lacs which he refused to return. Due to
which the deceased relation with himdeteriorated & on many
occasion fights turned physical also.
12. That, for mental cruelty Hon’ble SC has said that, “Mental
cruelty & it’s effect varies accordance to individual differences,
differences in social status differences b/w societies, it even said
that attitude of a person for another person can also be reason for
mental cruelty.”14

14
MATLHI RAVI V. B.V. RAVI
(2014) 7 SCC 395
13. That, in Raj Kumar Khanna vs State of (nct delhi) & ors 15 the
HON’BLE Court said that “Section 498-A IPC, has necessarily to
be a wilful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or
danger to her life or health. The use of the expression “wilful” in
the explanation to Section 498-A IPC indicates that the conduct
attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be
deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or
bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable
expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the
life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of
such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a
natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a
conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband
or his relative, as the case may be”.
14. That, in P.Bikshapati and ors. Vs. State of A.P16 , in this case
court held that “taking drink and coming late home much against
the will of wife may not per se, amount to cruelty but the acts
coupled with beating and demanding dowry and harassment to
bring money clearly amount to cruelty under sec 498A.”
15. That, whenever shikhar was in drunken state, he used to blame
from a family of beggars. This remark hurt & she tried to slit her
wrist and & her life.
16. Here, the cruelty was on high level the deceased went to her
parents’ home but her parents convinced her to return her in laws
home. 17. On 10th April 2014, she gave a birth to baby boy which
leads the family to financial mess.
18. Due to this, shikhar was very disturbed and in turn he used to
went his frustration on deceased and she in turn become more
agitated & started suffering from depression as well as mood
 swing. My lordship now I’d like to draw your attention towards the
second incident i.e. when she was killed by the accused by burning.
19. That, in the A. Jaychandra v. Aneel Kumar17, a 3 judge Bench
of this Court observed that the expression "cruelty" has not been
defined in the Act. “Cruelty can be physical or mental cruelty
which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as
willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause
danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to
a reasonable apprehension of such a danger”.
20. That in the Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, 18(2002)
2 SCC 73, the court said that “Cruelty may be physical or mental.
Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental
suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty",
therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty
as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it
would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the
other party”.
21. Desh Deepak Kapoor v/s State ( Delhi Adminstration19) the
Hon'ble Court has proceeded , “That the court has concluded that
the cruelty may cause physical and mental hurt to the deceased and
that there was always a danger to her life, limb and health during
the subsistence of the wedlock”.
22. That, in the fact sheet it’s clearly mention that On 4th January
2015, neighbours saw Arundhati running out of the house with her
sari on fire.
23. Also, she gave dying declaration that her mother-in-law chased
her when saree is on fire and also accused sarda could stop him to
get any help from her neighbours.
24. That for the above mention reason had done cruelty. So they
should be punished and held guilty for all the offences.
16
1989 Cri. L.j. 1186 (A.P)
17
(2005) 2 SCC 22
 ISSUE III WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE THE
COMMON INTENTION?

The state would humbly submit before the hon’ble learned session
court,
That, the accused persons have the common intention and had
prior meetings in minds. It was a clear pre-planned murder
committed by both Sarda and Shikhar.
Section 34 states that: -
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention.—[When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.].
A) Prior to burning
After few days of their marriage he started maltreating her. He
used to taunt her for being from a poor family. He used to drink
and beat her at night. Whenever he beat her, none of the family
members came to stop him which shows the pathetic condition of
Arundhati in her marital home where no one used to care about
her well being. Even her mother-in-law used to taunt her and used
to torture her. Due to these conditions , Arundhati got so stressed
that she even tried to kill herself but was saved by her sister-in-
law. The accused Sarda kept silent and even supported her in the
acts of cruelty of Shikhar on Arundhati and hereby attracting the
section 34 IPC,1860 B)
B) At the time of incident of murder or deceased
1. That, sarda poured the kerosene oil lighted up the fine and
accused person A-1 and A-2 abstained from the saving the life of
deceased. At the time when deceased was engulfed, in fine. A-1
and A-2 didn’t done anything. Even the ambulance was called by
the neighbours.
2. Hence, it clearly indicates that A-1 and A-2 had a Common
Intention and criminal acts constituted in furtherance of there
Intention. Clearly establish and thus attraction S-34 of IPC 1860
read with 302 of IPC.
3. That the burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual
participation of more than one person for commission of criminal
act was done in furtherance of common intention at a prior
concert. 20 4. That in one of the case, SC said that “its requires a
pre-arranged plan and pre-purpose prior concert therefore there
must be prior meeting of mind. It can also be developed at the supr
of moment but there must be pre- arrangement or premeditated
concert.

C) After burning That, common intention means a pre-oriented

plan and acting in pursuance to the plan, thus common intention
must exist prior to the commission of the act in a point of time21.[

1. That the A-1 and A-2, soon after the fire was extinguish by
neighbours the formers didn’t assist the deceased in availing
any form of medical treatment they clearly abstain themselves
from informing to the concerned authorities neither to medical
practitioner nor to police. They were so determined to murder
the deceased that they did not even inform her family members.
Hence neither of the accused have no moral support to be
spared. And thus attracting sec. 34 of IPC, 1860, along with sec.
302 of IPC, 1860. That in this case Kundula bala
subrahmanyam v. state of A.P. 22 the Hon’ble Court said that
 where the facts are very much similar to this case and the case
has been discussed on following points:
1. Dying Declaration: There was Dying Declaration done by
Arundhati, to sohan lal (sub inspector). Acc. To search report
and Dying Declaration her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil
on her and her husband and sarda set her on fire.
2. Medical Evidence: Acc. To M.R. of the Medical
practitioner died of 88% burns.
3. Conduct of the appellant immediately and after the
occurrence weather of the accused made any attempt what so
ever to extinguish the fire and save the deceased. They raised
no alarm. They stood as if they were waiting for her death,
rather than making any effort to save her. Their conduct thus
run consistent with hypothesis of the guilty. They didn’t try to
extinguish the fire and render any first aid to her.
4. In state of Punjab v. fauja singh23 , if some act is done by
the accused person in furtherance of co-accused, he is equally
liable like his co-accused. That for the above mention reason
had a common intention. So they should be punished and held
guilty for all the offences.

20
Mrinal das v. State of Tripura., AIR 2011 SC 3753
21
shyamal gosh v. state of w.B,AIR 2012 SC 3539
ISSUE IV WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE QUANTUM OF
PUNISHMENT OR NOT?
The state humbly submitted before the learned session court,
1. That, the deceased was constantly subjected to mental
torture & from the beginning of the marriage life of deceased
at her husband’s place, it was not that of a happily married
mesmerized life instead it was a life full brutal hardship.
2. That, the deceased was brutally murdered by pouring
kerosene & setting her on fire. 3. That, it is humble request to
the learned session court, that the brutal Sarda & Shikhar
should be severely punished.

S.NO. ACCUSED CHARGES

PERSONS
1. Shikhar Sec-302&498A read
with 34 of IPC
2. Sarda 302&498A read
with 34 of IPC,1860
 PRAYER
It is therefore, prayed that, your lordships may graciously be pleased. In
the light of agreements advanced and authorities cited, the prosecution
humbly submits that the learned session court may be pleaded to
adjudge and declare that,
❖ The accused persons are held guilty of the offence and are
convicted.
And pass any orders as your lordship may deem fit as it deems fit
in the interest of equity justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness the state shall ever pray.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Sd/- Counsels for the prosecution

 BEFORE
THE HONORABLE SESSION COURT,
PANIPAT
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF
STATE…..............................................PROSECUTION
Vs.
SHIKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS.............ACCUSED
Written Submission on behalf of the
ACCUSED
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO CONTENT PAGE NUM
1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
4 STATEMENT OFJURISDICTION
6 STATEMENT OF FACTS
7 ISSUES RAISED
8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHARDA AND
SHIKHAR ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH
UNDER SECTION 304-B OF IPC
NOT SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY OR HARRASSMENT

NOT IN CONNECTION OF ANY DEMAND OF

DOWRY

CRUELTY SOON BEFORE THE DEATH

ISSUE 2 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHARDA AND

SHIKHAR ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC
WEAK CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

Relying on the above-mentioned points, the Accused

Shikhar and Sarda are entitled of right to be acquitted as the
inculpatory facts are incompatible with the guilty mind of
the accused, and there is reasonable hypothesis of their
innocence
ABSENCE OF MENS REA:
ABSENCE OF ACTUS REUS

BURDEN OF PROOF ON PROCECUSSION AND

BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO RESPONDENT

PREPRATION OF SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DYING DECLARATION

ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR

AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF
SUICIDE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?
PRAYER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1
Supreme Court Cases (Cri)
2. Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010(3) RCD
(criminal)219
3. Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal)180
(P&H )
4. Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 490 (P&H
6. Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., (2013)
Cr.LA 919 SC
7. Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
8. Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another. (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 628
9. Manikandan V. State, (Criminal A(MD) No. 142 of 2016)
10. Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh, 2011 (2) RCR (criminal) 356 (P&H)
11. Padala Veera Reddy V. State of A.P, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706: 1991
SCC (Cri.) 407
12. Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734
13. Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 618
14. Re: Jayaraman Case, AIR 1949 Mad. 66
15. Sanjiv V. State, 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 2094: 2009 (164) 459
Delhi
16. Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr.LJ 2983, RLW 2008
(1) Raj. 477
17. State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad, 2010 (AIR 2009 SC 2307)
18. State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) SCC 73.
19. State V. Sridhar, 2000 CrLJ 328 (kant.)
20. Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) KLT SN
21. Sunil Bhiku Yadav V.State of Maharashtra,2010 (&) RCR (criminal)
205 (Bombay)
22. Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P. (2013) 3 SCC 684

STATUTES REFERRED:
 Indian Penal Code, 1860(bare act), 2014 Universal Law Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi
 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(bare Act), 2014 Universal
Law Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (bare Act), 2015 Universal Law
Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi

BOOKS REFERRED:
 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 by S.N. Mishra XIX Edition-
2014
 Commentaries on Indian Penal Code ( Act XLV of 1860), John
Dawson Mayne
 Durga Das Basu ,Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 V Edition Vol I-II
 K.D.Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, V Edition
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 29th Edition
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
(23rd ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 2015)
 BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (7th ed. Orient
Publishing Company, New Delhi 2015)
 JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (2nd ed.
Whytes& Co., New Delhi 2015) • S.K. SARVARIA, R.A.
 NELSON’S INDIAN PENAL CODE (9th ed. Lexis
NexisButterworths Gurgaon 2002).
 M.P. TANDON, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (23th ed. Allahabad
Law Agency, Faridabad 2005).
 KD GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS (7th
ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 2013)
 DR. HARI SINGH GOUR, 1 INDIAN PENAL CODE (14th ed.
Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad 2013)
 • DR. K.I. VIBHUTE, P.S.A. PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW (12th
ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 2015)
 JUSTICE G P SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION (12th ed. Lexis NexisButterworthsWadhwa,
Nagpur 2010)
 AMITA DHANDA, N.S. BINDRA’S, INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES (11th ed. Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 2014)
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Cr.L.J. CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
Cr. L.R. CRIMINAL LAW REPORTER
Cr.P.C. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
¶ PARAGRAPH
P PAGE NUMBER
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT
& AND
ed. EDITION
§ SECTION
Anr. ANOTHER
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
v. Versus
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents most humbly and respectfully submits to the

jurisdiction of Honorable Sessions Court of Panipat under Sec.177 r/w
Sec.184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Sec.177: 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.’
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
 That Arundhati Kumar was a 22-year-old girl who was
pursuing her degree from Geeta College of engineering,
Naultha. A bright carreer awaited her as not only was she the
topper of her class, but also had interned with some acclaimed
MNC’s of the country.
 That in 2009, their families were introduced to each other, and
on 9th of November 2010, they got married according to
Hindu rites. Arundhati moved into her matrimonial home with
Shikhar’s parents, sister and grandmother.
 That she had some differences with her in laws on many
occasions, but the matter was mostly settled amicably. That
 Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl on 11th December 2012.
Shikhar then took a loan from Arundhati’s parents of Rs.
5,00,000 which he later refused to return. Due to which
Arundhati’s relation with him deteriorated and on many
occasions, fights turned physical also.
 That this remark hurt her a lot and once she even tried to slit
her wrists and end her life but was saved by her sister in law.
After the incident, the physician did prescribe some medicines
for Arundhati and also advised her to consult a psychiatrist.
 That on 10th April 2014 Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy
which led the family to a financial mess. Shikhar was very
disturbed because of these financial complications, and in turn
he used to vent his frustration on Arundhati. She in turn
became more agitated and started suffering from depression as
well as mood swings.
 CASE:
 That on 4th January 2015, neighbours saw Arundhati running out
of the house with her sari on fire. Her mother-in-law was running
after her shouting that Arundhati was out of her mind to do
something like this.

POLICE ACTION:
i. SohanLal sub Inspector of police, on the same day at 11.00
hours recorded dying declaration of Arundhati.
ii. The police sent the body for post mortem examination.
iii. Police also conducted a search of the house.
iv. Arundhati’s mother in law and husband were arrested and
recorded their statements and were sent to judicial custody. On
24th August, 2018 the case is listed for hearing in the Trial and
Session Court of Panipat.
 ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE

LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECION 304-B OF
IPC?

II. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE

LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC?

III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND SARDA ARE

LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER
SECTION 306 OF IPC?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO.1 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR
AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH
UNDER SECTION 304-B OF IPC?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the
respondents Shikhar and Sarda are not liable for Dowry Death
under section-304B of IPC as none of the ingredients of section
304-B are fulfilled herein as it is a case of suicide.
Not subjected to Cruelty or Harassment:
SC in Vipin Jaiswal V. State of A.P., held that,“the prosecution is
required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the
evidence of the prosecution, we find that they have made general
allegations of harassment by the accused towards the deceased and
have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or
harassment by the accused on the deceased.
In the case of State V. Sridhar, it was held that, “where the
prosecution relied only on incident of unhappiness of deceased
with her husband and the allegation was only in the form of
suggestion, it doesnot establish criminal offence under either or
both charges. Hence, conviction under section 304-B is improper.
Not in connection with any demand of dowry:
It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel that the second
essential to invoke the presumption of Dowry Death under section
304-B requires that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in
connection with, any demand of Dowry which is not maintainable
in our present case,
 as according to dowry defined under section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 provides Dowry must be made in relation to
marriage of deceased (Arundhati) and the husband (Shikhar) and
no such demand has been ever made by him from Arundhati or her
parents.
 In the case of Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, it was
held that, “in order to bring home a conviction under section 304-B
of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that
cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that
such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry.”
 The counsel wants to submit that, there is no cruelty or harassment
to Arundhati in connection with any demand of dowry

Cruelty soon before her death:

The interpretation of expression “soon before her death” has been done
in the following cases as:
In the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar Pradesh, it
was held that, “the expression soon before death is a relative term and
would depend upon circumstances of each case. It is left to be
determined by courts depending upon facts and circumstances of the
case. And further held that;
i. The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the
interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or
harassment and the death in question.
ii. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has
become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the
woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
And herein in our case, there is no such incident of cruelty in fact of any
other small fight between Arundhati and her in-laws is found soon
before her death. Hence, there is nothing found

in the name of Cruelty or Harassment soon before her death. In fact by

such acts of slitting her wrists and suicide note she was torturing her in
laws and was making their miserable life much and more difficult.

ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR

AND SHARDA ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC?

It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar

and Sarda are not liable for murder under section 302 of IPC, because
the facts and circumstances are such that the guilt of accused is not
established beyond reasonable doubt.

Weak Circumstantial Evidence:

In the case of Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan SC held that:
All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the
possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. In our case it is
clear from the factual description that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident in question.

Absence of Mens Rea:

It was held in the case of Wakkar v. state of Uttar Pradesh that in case of
circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of
the accused assumes importance. And in our case the prosecution has
failed to establish the motive behind the guilt.
Absence of Actus Reus:
In our case, firstly there is neither active nor passive conduct on the part
of the respondent, Shikhar and Sarda. That is lack of Actus Reus in the
case and secondly, there is no incident recorded which infers the guilty
mind or action of the respondent which tend to result in such
consequences (i.e. Arundathi’s death)

Burden of Proof and Benefit of Doubt:

There no such pre planned Preparation of the act or any negative
previous conduct; if it was so then she could not manage to run away
from the spot. If they pre-planned the murder of Arundhati, they would
not let her ran out of the house. Hence, they are innocent and should be
acquitted.

Preparation and Subsequent Conduct:

It is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond the
reasonable doubt and when there is any hypothesis and even a certain
doubt as to guilt then the benefit of doubt must go in the favour of the
accused. Hence, both Shikhar and Sarda have right to be acquitted.

Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration:

In our present case, the statement made by the deceased before the
investigating officer (sub inspector) shall not be relied upon solely to
convict the Accused Shikhar and Sarda.
ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND
SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE
UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC?

It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar

and Sarda are not liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of
IPC as on careful reading of Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC,
the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are not made out.
Hence, they are not liable under section 306 of IPC for abetment of
suicide.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR
AND SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER
SECTION 304-B OF IPC?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the respondents
Shikhar and Sarda are not liable for Dowry Death under section-304B
of IPC as none of the ingredients of section 304-B are fulfilled herein as
it is a case of suicide.
In the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu24SC held that the
presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:
1. The question before the court must be whether the accused has
committed the dowry death of a woman.
2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
his relatives.
3. Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry.
4. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
That means the presumption given under section 304-B of IPC and
under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 shall only be raised, if
the prosecution shows material evidence to proof the abovementioned
essentials otherwise, it is not maintainable.
Similarly, in our case the above points are not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Not subjected to Cruelty or Harassment:
In the case of Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi25Justice RS Teji has
observed that, “it is necessary to establish the offence of section 498-A
IPC to prove the charges under section 304-B evidence to prove the
24
Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
25
Ramesh Chander v. State of Delhi, (2001) 9 SCC 618

guilt of respondent under section 498- A of IPC, tantamount to not

proving the commission of offence under section 304-B.
Whose observations have been relied upon by SC in Vipin Jaiswal V.
State of A.P 26 , relevant portions from the judgment read as under:
“The prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From
the evidence of the prosecution, we find that they have made general
allegations of harassment by the accused towards the deceased and have
not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the
accused on the deceased.
In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, IPC and the essential ingredient
of offence under Section 498A is that theaccused, as the husband of the
deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to
Section 498A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption
underSection 113B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused
dowry death as defined in Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution has to
prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the
accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution
has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of
harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and
304B, IPC has been made out by the prosecution.”
Accordingly, the essential ingredient of offence under section 498-A is
that, the husband or his relative has subjected her to cruelty as defined
in the explanation of section 498-A of IPC, which includes:
Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide:
And which is absent in our case, there is no willful conduct on the part
of shikhar and sarda which would drive Arundhati to commit suicide.

26
VipinJaiswal V. State of A.P. (2013) 3 SCC 684

Firstly, it is nowhere provided that she had scuffle with her in laws,
though in the very beginning she had some differences with her in laws
on many occasions, that can be due to some ideological differences
between them as after marriage it takes a little time to adjust by
everyone, and so far it is provided that the matters were settled amicably
most of the times.
Secondly, Shikhar the husband of the deceased was unable to maintain
his lifestyle and was facing financial crises, he has incurred the debt of
Rs. 5 lakhs, had the responsibilities of his grandmother, sister, parents,
his wife and children too. So, considering this he was in great stress and
suffered from mental distress. In fact, he profoundly required the
support his wife i.e. Arundhati to face ups and downs of the wife but on
the contrary, she acted as a person of frail mentality and committed
suicide leaving behind her 2 years old daughter and only 9 year old son.
He made the life of her in laws more miserable by this act.
Additional session Judge, Manoj Jain in a case gave a view that,“ it
would be hazardous to unnecessary overstretch there trivial issues of
any household and to give those colour of cruelty as defined in
explanation attached to section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, minor quarrel
or one or two stray incidents spread over a period of 4 yrs. would not
make it to be a case falling within the ambit of cruelty or Dowry Death.
Harassment to meet any unlawful demand:
In our case there is no such demand, as nothing has been given in the
facts which may even remotely suggest that Arundhati was subjected to
any harassment on account of any unlawful demand of any property or
valuable security.
Moreover, this is just a frivolous allegation made against Shikhar and
Sarda just to harass them. One such view was expressed by Former
Justice KT Thomas in his article titles ‘woman and the law’, that
“there is a general complaint that section 498-A of the IPC is
subject to gross misuse.”

As when women accuse their husbands undersection 498-A which is a

non bailable and cognizable offence, if the man is innocent, he doesn’t
at once get justice and suffers without any mistake.
Therefore, the court while dealing with such sensitive issue must be
pretty sure and invoke such section carefully as safeguard an innocent
person from harassment made on account of baseless, unfounded and
malicious allegations like in our case, except the small issues , there is
no incident of harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any
unlawful demand.
In the case of State V. Sridhar27, it was held that, “where the prosecution
relied only on incident of unhappiness of deceased with her husband
and the allegation was only in the form ofsuggestion, it does not
establish criminal offence under either or both charges. Hence,
conviction under section 304-B is improper.
Not in connection with any demand of dowry:
It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel that the second essential
to invoke the presumption of Dowry Death under section 304-B requires
that such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any
demand of Dowry which is not maintainable in our present case as
according to dowry defined under section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 provides Dowry must be made in relation to marriage of
deceased(Arundhati) and the husband (Shikhar) and no such demand
has been ever made by him from Arundhati or her parents.
 In the case of Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh28, it was
held that, “in order to bring home a conviction under section 304-B
of IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that
 cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that
such treatment was in connection with the demand of dowry.”
27
State V. Sridhar, 2000 CrLJ 328 (kant.)
28
Durga Prasad V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010(3) RCD (criminal)219 SC

 In the case of Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh29 , it was held that

demand of Rs. 50,000 to start work not be construed as Demand of
Dowry” And in our case Shikhar has taken a debt of Rs. 5 Lakhs
from Arundhati’s parents not as Dowry but as a help in his
condition of financial crises.
 In the case of Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab30, it was held that,
“demand of a sum of Rs. 3 lacs was made by way of help, had no
connection with marriage performed. It was not demand of dowry
within meaning of DOWRY.”
 • In the case of Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab31 , it was held
that “the Demand for a sum of Rs. 70,000 for setting up a
television shop would not amount to demand of dowry.” • In the
case of Sunil BhikuYadavV.State of Maharashtra,32it was held that
“any demand made by accused cannot be said to be demand made
for dowry.”
 In the case of Sanjiv V. State33 , it was held that, Mere evidence of
Cruelty or harassment is not sufficient to attract provisions of
section 304-B of IPC. So, considering all the above mentioned
cases and arguments, the counsel wants to submit that, there is no
cruelty or harassment to Arundhati in connection with any demand
of dowry.
Cruelty soon before her death:
The interpretation of expression “soon before her death” has been
done in the following cases as:
In the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar
Pradesh34, it was held that,
 “The expression soon before death is a relative term and would
depend upon circumstances of each case. It is left to be determined by
courts depending upon facts and circumstances of the case. And
further held that;
29Manohar Singh V. Daljit Singh, 2011 (2) RCR (criminal) 356 (P&H)
30Jaspal Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal) 490 (P&H)

iii. The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the
interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or
harassment and the death in question.
iv. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has
become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the
woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
And herein in our case, there is no such incident of cruelty but any
other small fight between Arundhati and her in laws is found soon
before her death.
In the case of Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra35 , it
was held that,“ the expression ‘soon before her death’ means interval
between cruelty and death should not be much. There must be
existence of a proximate and live links between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the concerned death.”

31Gurcharan Singh V. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (criminal)180 (P&H)

32 Sunil Bhiku Yadav V. State of Maharashtra,2010 (&) RCR (criminal) 205 (Bombay)
33Sanjiv V. State, 2010 (6) RCR (Criminal) 2094: 2009 (164) 459 Delhi
34Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal)
939:2010(6) R.A.J. 342 SC
35Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 397
After considering the above mentioned cases, we infer that 3 rd essential
requires live links between the Cruelty done and the concerned death.
So, the counsel further contends that:

1. Firstly, there is no cruelty on the part of Shikhar and Sarda as

pleaded earlier.
2. Secondly, there is no such act, soon before the death of Arundhati.
3. She committed suicide due to her frail mentality and for her foolish
decision another person cannot be blamed.
4. Though Arundhati was well-educated and was a brilliant student
she failed to manage her married life.
5. Only due to low lying disturbances in her married life she dragged
herself into mental depression and started acting in a more agitated
manner as provided in the factsheet that:
i. Firstly, she used to argue with her in laws on many occasions.
ii. Secondly, she even tried to slit her wrist and wanted to end her
life.
iii. Thirdly, investigating officer found a suicide note by
Arundhati dated 9th Nov., 2014 (while conducting search of a
house under section 157 of Cr.P.C.)
iv. Fourthly, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on
her and set herself to fire on 4th Jan., 2015.
So, we can say that Arundhati was a woman of low tolerance power,
was hyper-sensitive and was having an unstable mind, that’s why she
again and again tried to end her life by her own.
Hence, there is nothing found in the name of Cruelty or Harassment
soon before her death. In fact by such acts of slitting her wrists and
suicide note she was torturing her in laws and was making their
miserable life much and more difficult.

In the case of Manikandan V. State36, Justice P Devadass observed that,

“sometimes the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the victim
himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the part
of the accused. A person may die like a coward like on his failure in the
examination, a student may commit suicide.

They are weak minded. They are persons of frail mentality and for their
foolish act another person cannot be blames as the case in our present
situation. There is no willful conduct or act or harassment in connection
with any demand of dowry, soon before her death which would make
Shikhar and Sarda liable under section 304-B.Hence, it is purely a case
of suicide and not Dowry Death.

36
Manikandan V. State, (Criminal A(MD) No. 142 of 2016)
ISSUE NO.2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND
SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION
302 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar
and Sarda are not liable for murder under section 302 of IPC, because
the facts and circumstances are such that the guilt of accused is not
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Weak Circumstantial Evidence:
In the case of Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan37 SC held that:
1. Circumstances should be fully proved.
2. Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
3. All the facts established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt.
4. The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the
possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused.
And in our case it is clear from the factual description that it is a case
of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident
in question.
Another aspect which is to be kept in mind is that it is for the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused charged for such an
offence and too beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where there is no
eyewitness and, which rests upon circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution is obligated to prove all those circumstances which leave
no manner of doubts to establish the guilt of the accused person, i.e.,
chain of continuous circumstances must be complete and must clearly
pointto the guilt of the accused. Chain of continuous circumstances
means that all the circumstances are linked up with one another and
the chain do not get broken in between.
And herein no such complete chain is found and there is reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, so the benefit of doubt must go in
the favour of the accused. And further, we keep in mind that this court
is dealing with criminal matter where respondent is charged with
committing murder of Arundhati. So, the criminal cases cannot be
decided on the basis of hypothesis.
 In the case of Padala Veera Reddy V. State of A.P.,38Following
tests laid down which need to be kept in mind:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to
be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and
none else; and
 Sir Alfred Wills in his book Wills' Circumstantial Evidence
(Chapter VI) lays down the following Rules specially to be
observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the
factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party
who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability.
(3) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts
must be incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and
incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis
than that of his guilt; and
(4) if there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he
is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
Relying on the above mentioned points, the Accused Shikhar and Sarda
are entitled of right to be acquitted as the inculpatory facts are
incompatible with the guilty mind of the accused, and there is
reasonable hypothesis of their innocence.
38
PadalaVeera Reddy V. State of A.P, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 706: 1991 SCC (Cri.) 407
37
SatishNirankari v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr.LJ 2983, RLW 2008 (1) Raj. 477

intent towards the victim. But herein, by relating it to the facts of our
case there is no such incident which proves the Mens Rea of the
accused, in fact Arundhati never had any quarrel with her mother-in-law
i.e. Sarda, the accused, minor incidents of arguments with her husband
on small issues can take place in any household and it would be unsafe
and rather hazardous to unnecessarily overstretch these trivial isuues
and to give those colour of criminal intention.
However, if respondent had the intention to commit the murder of
arundhati, they could have run away from the spot of incident. As
admittedly, there is no eyewitness of the whole incident.
If the respondent had intention to commit murder shikhar would not
have brought water to douse the fire and sarda would not have shouted
for help and ran behind her.
It was held in the case of Wakkar v. state of uttar Pradesh39that in case
of circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part
of the accused assumes importance. And in our case the prosecution has
failed to establish the motive behind the guilt.
Absence of Actus Reus:
The second main essential for constituting a crime is the Actus Reus.
Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to
have done something or omitted to do something, resulting in injury
to the plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act, there
can beno crime an act alone does not make a crime. In certain cases,
circumstances of the case are also taken into consideration, and are
often used to either conclusively prove guilt, or can be used to prove
reasonable doubt of intention.
 39
Wakkar v. state of uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306
40
Re: Jayaraman Case, AIR 1949 Mad. 66

 In Re: Jayaraman Case, Justice Anantanarayanan Natesen 40,

it was observed that, “the new test (foresight of consequences) is
found in the requirement that the accused person, when pursuing
the life of active conduct (or passive) in cases where there is a legal
duty to actionwhich resulted in the harm for which he is charged
i.e. the Actus Reus, must have been aware that certain sped fled
harmful consequences would or could follow. Such a test arises
naturally from the adoption of the ethical approach to the problem
of crime, since in many minds it is hard to see any moral blame.”
Similarly, in our case, firstly there is neither active nor passive conduct
on the part of the respondent, Shikhar and Sarda. That is lack of Actus
Reus in the case and secondly, there is no incident recorded which infers
the guilty mind or action of the respondent which tend to result in such
consequences (i.e. Arundathi’s death).
Burden of Proof on Prosecution and Benefit of Doubt to
respondent:
The inalienable interface of presumption of innocence and the burden of
proof in a criminal case on the prosecution has been succinctly
expounded in the following passage from the treatise "The Law of
Evidence" fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 445:
The presumption of innocence states that a person is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty. As explained above, the burden of proof
Rule has a number of functions, one of which is to provide a Rule of
decision for the fact finder in a situation of uncertainty. Another
function is to allocate the risk of misdecision in criminal trials. Because
the outcome of wrongful conviction is regarded as a significantly worse
harm than wrongful acquittal the Rule is constructed so as to minimise
the risk of the former. The burden of overcoming a presumption that the
Defendant is innocent therefore requires the state to prove the
Defendant's guilt. The above quote thus seemingly concedes a
preference to wrongful acquittal compared to the risk of wrongful
conviction.
Such is the abiding jurisprudential concern to eschew even the remotest
possibility of unmerited conviction.
 The Concise Dictionary of Law, Oxford Paperbacks has this
comprehensive yet succinct definition of burden of proof which is
worthy of reproduction:
"Burden of Proof: The duty of a party to litigation to prove a fact or
facts in issue. Generally the burden of proof falls upon the party who
substantially asserts the truth of a particular fact (the prosecution or the
Plaintiff). A distinction is drawn between the persuasive (or legal)
burden, which is carried by the party who as a matter of law will lose
the case if he fails to prove the fact in issue;
and the evidential burden (burden of adducing evidence or burden of
going forward), which is the duty of showing that there is sufficient
evidence to raise an issue fit for the consideration of the trier of fact as
to the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
This applies with full force particularly in fact situations where the
charge is the sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.

 Addressing this aspect, however, is the following extract also

from the same treatise "The Law of Evidence" fifth edition by
Ian Dennis at page 483:
Where the case against the accused depends wholly or partly on
inferences from circumstantial evidence, fact finders cannot logically
convict unless they are sure that inferences of guilt are the only ones
that can reasonably be drawn. If they think that there are possible
innocent explanations for circumstantial evidence that are not "merely
fanciful", it must follow that thereis a reasonable doubt about guilt.
There is no rule, however, that judges must direct juries in terms not to
convict unless they are sure that the evidence bears no other explanation
than guilt.

 Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., 41

it is held that, “The circumstances brought forth by the prosecution
do not Rule out in absolute terms the hypothesis of the innocence
of the Appellant. We thus consider it to be wholly unsafe to
maintain his conviction as recorded by the courts below. We are
therefore inclined to extend benefit of doubt to him. The
conclusions drawn by the courts below are not tenable on the basis
of the evidence available. The appeal isthus allowed and the
conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below is hereby set
aside. The Appellant be released from the jail forthwith if he is not
required in any other case.”
Hence, by referring to all the above mentioned points, and linking
it with our present case, it is clear that the prosecution failed to
establish the case beyond the reasonable doubt and when there is
any hypothesis and even a certain doubt as to guilt then the benefit
of doubt must go in the favour of the accused. Hence, both Shikhar
and Sarda have right to be acquitted.
Preparation and subsequent conduct:
Section 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides with: “The
conduct of any party to any suit or proceeding is relevant if such
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant
fact or whether it was previous or subsequent thereto” And in our
case the subsequent conduct of the respondents is positive they
tried to save her by shouting for help and bringing water to douse
the fire, and took her to the hospital. In these kinds of cases the
accused tend to flee away but herein the subsequent conduct of
accused is positive and that should be taken into consideration as
 relevant. Secondly, there no such pre planned Preparation of the act
or any negative previous conduct; if it was so then she could not
manage to run away from the spot. If they pre planned the murder
of Arundhati, they would not let her ran out of the house. Hence,
they are innocent and should be acquitted.

Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration:

 In case of Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 42 it was held that,
“the statement given by the injured to the investigating officer is
not admissible as Dying Declaration under section 32.
 In case State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad, 43it was held that,
“when the statement of the deceased was recorded by the
Investigation officer it was not a Dying declaration, the conviction
recorded only on the basis of this statement were therefore not
correct.
So, in our present case, the statement made by the deceased before
the investigating officer (sub-inspector) shall not be relied upon
solely to convict the Accused Shikhar and Sarda.
42
Sukhar V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 (2) KLT SN 10
43
State of Rjasthan V. Ashfaq Ahmad, 2010 (AIR 2009 SC 2307)

ISSUE NO.3 WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND

SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR ABETMENT OF SUICIDE UNDER
SECTION 306 OF IPC?
It is most humbly submitted by the counsel that the respondent Shikhar
and Sarda are not liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of
IPC as on careful reading of Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC,
the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are not made out.
The counsel want to rely upon the judgment of Amalendu Pal alias
Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal 44 where SC held that," The legal
position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently
reiterated by the Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjabas
follows: "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of
conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into
conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be
described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before
a person can be said to be abetting thecommission of offence under
Section 306IPC.
In case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal45l the Court has observed that
the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to
the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domesticlife quite
common to the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a
similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty."

Similarly, in our present case Arundhati acted in a hypersensitive

manner as there were small or trivial differences between them which is
quite common and that may be possible because Shikhar was disturbed
and suffering from mental depression due to financial complications.
Moreover, there is nowhere provided in the facts that Arundhati had
ever any kind of scuffle with her mother-in-law that would instigate her
to commit suicide. Hence, there is not even a single statement or record
which shows the abetment for the commission of suicide.
In order to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC,
the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the
case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to
be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must
be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC should not be sustainable.
Therefore, in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of
IPC, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide
must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As held by Supreme
Court in case, Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal46that offence of
abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who
abets. Also in case, Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and
Another., 47 SC is of the view that: "In order to bring out an offence
under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the
suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is
required.
The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased
to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section
306, IPC.
And the counsel is of the clear opinion that there is no question of
presence of such intention in our present case, required for offence
under Section 306, IPC as nothing has been provided in the facts with
regard to this.
In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the
Court acquitting the accused said: "A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.”
Therefore, firstly the presence of Mens rea is the necessary concomitant
of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a
quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with
Mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional.
]Secondly, their marital relations get ruined after the birth of the
second child, i.e., after 10th April, 2014 ensued by the financial
instability then the suicide note by Arundhati dated 9thNovember 2014
and then Arundhati committed suicide on 4th January 2015.
Assuming that the deceased had taken the arguments seriously, but she
had enough time in between to think over and reflect and to weigh the
pros and cons of the act by which she ultimately ended her life.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the arguments, which had been done
between the deceased and respondent drived the deceased to commit
suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 4th January 2015 is not proximate
to the arguments made. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on
4th January 2015 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct
result of the quarrel taken place between them.
Hence, Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". What constitutes instigation must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
The present one is not a case of that where the accused had by his acts
or omission or by a continued courseof conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred as
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
It is extremely unfortunate that person has committed suicide and
brought her life to an end for stress arising out of matrimonial dispute
which in these days is not a rare of the rarest happenings in the social
spectrum. Thus, continuance of proceedings against respondents shall
be the abuse of process of law. Because, guilt of the accused must be
proved by the direct evidence and activerole on the part of him in the
abetment by direct or indirect instigation or to act or facilitate to
commission of suicide which will have the necessary ingredients but are
not there in our present case. Hence, they are not liable under section
306 of IPC for abetment of suicide.
 PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on
the behalf of Respondents will like to pray before the honourable
Sessions Court to kindly –
Acquit the defendant of all the charges
 Of Dowry Death, thereby, acquit from any punishment under
section 304-B, IPC;
 Of murder and, thereby, acquit from any punishment under section
302, IPC;
 Of Abetment of suicide U/S- 306, IPC;
And to pass any other judgment which it may deem fit and proper in the
light of natural justice, equity and good conscience for which the
counsels on the behalf of respondents shall duty bound forever pray.

Humbly submitted by:

Counsel on the behalf of Respondents
 BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE CIVIL COURT OF
HYDERABAD

FILED UNDER SECTION 9 0F THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

IN THE MATTER OF
SOHAN…...................................... PETITIONER
Vs.
MOHAN…………………............... RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO CONTENT PAGE

NUMBER

1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3 STATEMENT OFJURISDICTION

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS

5 ISSUES RAISED

6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHIKHAR AND

SARDA ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC?
2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED PERSONS, HAVE
THE COMMON INTENTION?
3) WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE THE
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT OR NOT?

7 PRAYER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION: -

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872.

CASES REFERRED: -

 Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v Union Of India, 1962 SCR (2) 880.

 Section 2(A) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872
 Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 ALJ 489.
 K. P. Chowdhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 1966 SCR
(3) 919.
 Chatturbhui Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Prashram, (1954) S.
C. R. 817
 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, [1892] EWCA Civ 1
 Har Bhajan. Lal v. Han Charan Lal , AIR 1925 All 539
 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35.
 Luftus v Roberts, (1902) 18 T.L.R. 532).
LEGAL DATABASE: -

 https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1426&context=facpubs
 https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/essentials-of-a-valid-offer/
 https://sol.du.ac.in/mod/book/view.php?id=644&chapterid=361
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORT
& AND
ed. EDITION
Sec SECTION
v. Versus
UOI Union of India
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court under Sec. 9 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 in form of a civil application in civil court

SEC 9- Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The Courts shall
(subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all
Suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation 1.—As suit in which the right to property or to an office is
contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may
depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or
ceremonies.
Explanation Il—For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial
whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in
Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular
place.
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS
1. Mohan and Sohan were long standing acquaintances who regularly
had business dealings with one another. On 1st November, 2018,
Mohan, from his home addressed at Hyderabad, wrote to Sohan at his
addressed at Bhillai, offering to sell him his customised Volkswagen
Polo Motor Car, (which he has long admired), for Rs. 5, 00,000 the
offer to remain open until 5th November, 2018.

2. On receiving the offer on 2nd November, 2018 Sohan left Bhillai

on a business trip toLucknow. On the 2nd of November, 2018, Mohan
sold the car to Kamal and posted to Sohan a revocation of his offer. This
was delivered to Sohan’s Bhillai address on 3rd November, 2018. On
4th November, 2018, Sohan posted an acceptance of the offer from
Lucknow, addressed to Mohan at his business address, (which was the
address from which Mohan usually conducted dealings with Sohan) in
Kondapur, Hyderabad. It was delivered there on 5th November, 2018
but as Mohan was absent from his office on that day, and it wasn’t read
by him until 6th November, 2018.
3. On 7th November, 2018 Sohan returned home and read the letter of
revocation. Sohan claimed that a contract had been formed between
himself and Mohan, in that he had accepted the offer either on 4th
November, 2018 through the application of the postal, or on the 5th
November, 2018 when the letter was delivered to Mohan’s place of
business. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before
Mohan’s letter of revocation was communicated to him.

ARGUMENTS INVOLVED

WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY PLAINTIFF AND

ACCEPTANCE COMMUNICATED BY THE PLAINTIFF WERE
VALID?
 ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE OFFER GIVEN BY PLAINTIFF AND
ACCEPTANCECOMMUNICATED BY THE PLAINTIFF
WERE VALID?

It is humbly submitted by the plaintiffs that Contracts play an important

role in our everyday life ranging from insurance policies to employment
contracts. In Fact, we enter into contracts even without thinking for
example while buying a movie ticket or downloading an app. Contracts
are oral or written agreements between two or more parties. Parties
entering into a contract might include individual people, companies,
non-profits or government agencies. The whole process of entering into
a contract starts with an offer by one party, an acceptance by another
party, and an exchange of consideration (something of value)1.

2
1Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v Union Of India, 1962 SCR (2) 880.
Section 2(A) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872.
 DEFINITION OF OFFER

According to Section 2(A) of the Indian Contracts Act, 18722, When a

person expresses his willingness to another person to do or to abstain
from doing something and also obtain the consent of such expression, it
is called an offer.
The person who makes an offer is called “Offerer” or “Promiser” and
the person to whom the offer is made is called the “Offeree” or
“Promisee”.
Illustration- Mr. A says to Mr. B, “Will you purchase my car for
Rs.1,00,000?” In this case, Mr. A is making an offer to Mr. B. Here A is
the offeror and B is the offeree.

ESSENTIALS OF VALID OFFER

There are mainly three essential elements of a valid offer:

The offer must be Communicated

Communication or expression of the willingness by the offerer to enter
into a contract or abstain from doing so is essential for a valid offer.
Mere desire or willingness to do or not to do something is not enough
and will not constitute for an offer.
In Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt2 it was held that mere knowledge of an
offer does not imply acceptance by the offeree.
Terms of the offer must be clear and definite

2 Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt, (1913) 11 ALJ 489.

Knowledge of the Intention of the parties is very essential as without
this the courts will not be able to decide what the parties want to do.
Therefore the terms of the offer must be clear and definite and not vague
and loose.
Example-Ram offers Shyam to sell fruits worth Rs 600/-. This is not a
valid offer since what kinds of fruits or their specific quantities are not
mentioned.

Must create a legal relationship

It is essential for a valid proposal that it must be made with the intention
of creating a legal relationship otherwise it will only be an invitation. A
social invitation may not create a social relationship. An offer must lead
to a contract which creates legal obligations and legal consequences in
the case of non-performance of the contract.

Offer may be general or specific

Offer may be general or specific: An offer may be made to definite
person or persons or to the world at large. When it is made to some
specific person or persons it is called a specific offer. When it is made to
the world at large it is called a General offer. A specific offer can be
accepted only by the person to whom the offer has been made and in the
manner, if any specified in the terms of the offer3.
But a general offer can be accepted by any persons having notice of the
offer by doing what is required under the offer. The most obvious
example of such an offer is where a reward is publicity offered to any
about that object, who will recover a lost object or wll give some
information, there the party claiming the reward has not to prove
anything more than that he has performed the conditions on which the
reward was offered. The time table of railways is a general proposal to
run trains according to the table, which is accepted by an intending
passenger tendering the price of the ticket4.
3 K. P. Chowdhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, 1966 SCR (3) 919.
4 Chatturbhui Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Prashram, (1954) S. C. R. 817
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.5, in this case, the Company
advertised that a reward of £ 100 would be given to any person who
contracted influenza after having used the smoke-balls of the Company
as directed. Mrs. Carlill used the smoke-balls according to the directions
of the company. but contracted influenza. It was held, that the offer was
a general one, and Mrs. Carlill had accepted it by acting in accordance
with the advertisement, and therefore, the company could not get away
from its responsibility by saying that they had not meant it seriously.
She was entitled to the reward.
In India, the principle was applied in the case of Har Bhajan. Lal v. Han
Charan Lal6, in this case offer of reward was made to any one tracing a
lost boy and bringing him home. Harbhajan Lal who knew of the
reward. found out the boy and took him to the Police Station.
It was held that he was entitled to the reward.

WAYS IN WHICH AN OFFER CAN BE COMMUNICATED

By words (whether written or oral)

The written offer can be made by letters, telegrams, E-mail,

advertisements, etc. The oral offer can be made either in person or over
the telephone. It has been held in various judgments of various courts
that any form of written offer can be termed as a valid offer.

5 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, [1892] EWCA Civ 1

6 Har Bhajan. Lal v. Han Charan Lal , AIR 1925 All 539
By conduct

The offer may be communicated by making positive acts or signs to the

offeree. However, the silence of a party does not amount to an offer.
Example– When you board a taxi, you are accepting to pay the taxi fare
via your conduct.
‘Implied offer’ means an offer made by conduct, an offer may also be
implied from the conduct of the parties or the circumstances of the case.
This is known as an implied offer. When one person allows the other to
perform certain acts under such circumstances that nobody would accept
them without consideration it will amount to an offer by conduct and the
permission of the party, who is benefitted by such performances, will
amount to his acceptance . 7

Example- A bus company runs a bus on a particular route. This is an

implied offer by the bus company to take any person on the route who is
prepared to pay the prescribed fare. The acceptance of the offer is
complete as soon as a passenger gets into the bus.

7 https://sol.du.ac.in/mod/book/view.php?id=644&chapterid=361, Last Visited 19th June, at 8:58pm.

ACCEPTANCE

A contract comes into being from the acceptance of an offer. When the
person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the
proposal is said to be accepted (Sec. 2(b)8. Thus, acceptance of the offer
must be absolute and unqualified. It cannot be conditional.
When an offer is made to particular person or to a group of persons, it
can be accepted only by that person or member of the group. If it is
accepted by any other persons, there is no valid acceptance.
Example: B sold his business to P without disclosing the fact to his
customers. J, who had a running account with B, placed an order with B
for supply of certain goods. The new owner without disclosing the fact
of himself having purchased the business, executed the order. J refused
to pay P for the goods because he, by entering into contract with B
intended to set off his debt against B. Held, the new owner of could not
recover the price9

ESSENTIALS OF A VALID ACCEPTANCE

Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified:

Section 7 of the Contract Act requires that the acceptance must be

absolute and unqualified. It must correspond with all the terms of the
offer. Conditional acceptance is no acceptance. If there is a variation in
the terms of the acceptance, it is not an acceptance, but a counter-offer,
which the proposer may or may not accept. A counter-offer destroys the
original offer. Thereafter the offeree cannot rever to the original offer
and purport to accept it.

8 Section 2(b), Indian Contract Act, 1872.

9 https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws/indian-contract-act-1872-part-i/acceptance/,
Example: A offers to sell his house for a sum of Rs. 20,000 B sends his
acceptance to purchase it for a sum of Rs. 19,000. There is no
acceptance. It will be taken as a new offer from B, which may not be
accepted by A.

Acceptance must be in the mode prescribed: A proposal must be

accepted according to its terms. If the proposal lays down a mode of
acceptance, the acceptance must be according to the mode prescribed.
Therefore, if the proposer choses to require that the goods shall be
delivered at a particular place, he is not bound to accept delivery at any
other place. It is not for the acceptor to say that some other mode of
acceptance which is not according to the terms of the proposal will do as
well10.If the acceptance is not given in the made prescribed, the proposer
may reject the acceptance and intimate the offeree within a reasonable
time. But if he does not inform the offeree, he is deemed to have
accepted the acceptance.
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror: Acceptance must
be communicated to the offeror to create a binding contract. Mental
acceptance is no acceptance in the eyes of law. But where the offer is to
be accepted by being acted upon, no communication to the offer will be
necessary.
Silence cannot be prescribed as mode of acceptance: The offer cannot
frame his offer in such a way as to make the silence or inaction of the
offeree to operate as an acceptance. In other words, the offeror can
prescribe the mode of acceptance but not the mode of rejection. In the
leading case11, F offered by letter to buy his nephew’s horse for £30
adding, “If I hear no more about it, I shall consider the horse as mine for
£30. Nephew did not give any reply, but he told an auctioneer who was
selling his horses not to sell that particular horse becaue it was sold to
his uncle. By mistake auctioneer sold the horse. Held: F had no claim
10 https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/essentials-of-a-valid-offer/,
11 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35. 13
Luftus v Roberts, (1902) 18 T.L.R. 532).
against the auctioneer because the horse had not been sold to him and
the horse did not belong to F. Silence cannot be prescribed as a mode of
acceptance because if that was so the offeree will be put to a great deal
of inconvenience because he shall have to unnecessary write in clear
terms that he is not accepting the offer.

Agreement to agree in future: If the parties have failed to agree upon

the terms of the contract but have made an agreement to agree in future,
there is no contract, example: An actress was engaged by a theatrical
company for a certain period. One of the terms of the agreement was
that if the party was, shown in London, she would be engaged at a
salary to be mutually agreed upon. Held, there was no contract13.
In the light of the above mentioned case rulings and citations, it is
submitted before this honourable Court that there was a valid offer on
the part of the plaintiff, which was duly and in valid terms accepted by
the plaintiffs.
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED,
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES
CITED, THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. HOLD THAT THE OFFER GIVEN BY PLAINTIFF AND

ACCEPTANCE COMMUNICATED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS
INVALID AS PER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
2. HOLD THAT THE REVOCATION OF OFFER DONE BY THE
DEFENDANT WAS NOT VALID AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 THEREFORE THE CONTRACT
CANNOT BE REVOKED.

3. DECLARE THAT THERE WAS BREACH OF CONTRACT ON

PART OF DEFENDANT AND THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO
GET DAMAGES OR AN ORDER SHOULD BE PASSED AGAINST
THE PLAINTIFF TO FULFIL HIS PART OF OBLIGATION. AND

PASS ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT MAY DEEM

FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR WHICH, THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY

Counsels for the Petitioner
 JURISDICTION

1) This Hon’ble Court have jurisdiction to conduct and entertain this

case U/S 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 hence, this Court have
Original Jurisdiction.
2) Event of grievance committed under Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court hence, this court has also Territorial Jurisdiction the
Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court under Section.
3) The cost of Civil Suit is up to 5 lakh hence, the Civil Court Senior
Division have Pecuniary Jurisdiction.

Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for:-

When a contract has been broken, if a sumis named in the contract as
the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains
any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the
breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to
have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the
contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named
or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.
Explanation — A stipulation for increased interest from the date of
default may be a stipulation by way of penalty. Exception — When any
person enters into any bail-bond, recognizance or other instrument of
the same nature or, under the provisions of any law, or under the orders
of the [Central Government] or of any [State Government], gives any
bond for the performance of any public duty or act in which the public
are interested, he shall be liable, upon breach of the condition of any
such instrument, to pay the whole sum mentioned therein.

Explanation — A person who enters into a contract with Government

does not necessarily thereby undertake any public duty, or promise to do
an act in which the public are interested. Illustrations

a A contract with B to pay B Rs. 1,000 if he fails to pay BRs. 500 on

a given day. A fail to pay B Rs. 500 on that day. B is entitled to
recover from A such compensation, not exceeding Rs. 1,000, as the
Court considers reasonable.
b A contract with B that, if A practices as a surgeon within Calcutta,
he will pay B Rs. 5,000. A practices as a surgeon in Calcutta. Bis
entitled to such compensation; not exceeding Rs. 5,000 as the court
considers reasonable.
c A gives a recognizance binding him in a penalty of Rs.
500toappear in Court on a certain day. He forfeits his recognizance.
He is liable to pay the whole penalty.
d A gives B a bond for the repayment of Rs. 1,000 with interest at12
per cent. at the end of six months, with a stipulation that, in case of
default, interest shall be payable at the rate of 75 per cent. From the
date of default. This is a stipulation by way of penalty, and B is
only entitled to recover from A such compensation as the Court
considers reasonable.
e A, who owes money to B, a money-lender, undertakes to repay him
by delivering to him 10 mounds of grain on a certain date, and
stipulates that, in the event of his not delivering the stipulated
amount by the stipulated date, he shall be liable to deliver 20
mounds. This is a stipulation by way of penalty, and B is only
entitled to reasonable consideration in case of breach.
f A undertakes to repay B a loan of Rs. 1,000 by five equal monthly
instalments, with a stipulation that, in default, of payment of any
instalment, the whole shall become due. This stipulation is not
byway of penalty, and the contract may be enforced according to
its terms.
g A borrows Rs. 100 from B and gives hima bond for Rs. 200payable
by five yearly instalments of Rs. 40, with a stipulation that, in
default of payment of any instalment, the whole shall become due.
This is a stipulation by way of penalty.
Books Referred: -

1) Contract & Specific Relief – Avtar Singh2

2) Contract Law in India - Nilima Bhadbhade

Statutes Referred: -

1) The Indian Contract Act, 1872\

2) Specific Performance Act, 1963

Websites Referred :-

1) www.indiankanoon.com
2) www.ssconline.com
LIST OF AUTHORITIES/CITATIONS/CASE LAW

1) Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880]

2) M.C. Manickam Chettiar vs The Madras City Municipal on
22September, 1975
3) Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December,
20024. Lalit Mohan Taran vs Lal Mohan Deb And Ors. on 9
March, 19845. hetanram Ramgopal vs Chief Engineer, Pwd,
Rajasthan ... on16April, 1999
4) Binod Kumar Khetan vs The Hindustan Copper Limited And...
on16 February, 2006
 FACT SHEET

1. Mohan and Sohan were long standing acquaintances who regularly

had business dealings with one another.
2. 2. On 1st November 2012, Mohan, from his home address in
Hyderabad, wrote to Sohan at his address in Bhillai, offering to sell
him his customized Volkswagen Polo motor car, (which he has
long admired), for Rs 5,00,000 the offer to remain open until
5thNovember 2012.
3. On receiving the offer on 2nd November, Sohan left Bhillai on a
business trip to Lucknow.
4. On the 2nd of November, Mohan sold the car to Kamal and posted
to Sohan a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Sohan’s
Bhillai address on 3rd November.
5. On 4th November, Sohan posted an acceptance of the offer from
Lucknow, addressed to Mohan at his business address, (which was
the address from which Mohan usually conducted dealings with
Sohan) in Kondapur, Hyderabad. It was delivered there
on5thNovember but as Mohan was10 absent from his office on that
day, it wasn’t read by him until 6th November. On 7th November,
Sohan returned home and read the letter of revocation.
6. Sohan filed a case in the civil court claiming that a contract had
been formed between himself and Mohan, in that he had accepted
the offer either on 4th November through the application of the
postal, or on the 5th November when the letter was delivered to
Mohan’s place of business. Both events took place before the offer
lapsed and before Mohan’s letter of revocation was communicated
to him. Hence, Mohan selling the car to Kamal was in breach of
the contract.
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN

MOHANANDSOHAN?
2. WHETHER POSTAL CONTRACT IS VALID AS PER THE
INDIANCONTRACT ACT 1872?
3. WHETHER THIS REVOCATION IS VALID AS PER THE
INDIANCONTRACT ACT 1872?
4. WHEATHER MOHAN BREACH CONTRACT?
5. WHETHER MOHAN IS LIABLE FOR PAY
COMPENSIONREASONOFBREACH OF CONTRACT?
 1. NO THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OR AGGREMENT
BETWEEN THEM.

Because as per the Indian contract act if one party agree tosell
something to someone this is not a contract or agreement .In this case
Mohan On 1st November what happened On 1st November, 2018,
Mohan, from his home addressed at Hyderabad, wrote to Sohan at his
addressed at Bhillai, offering to sell him his customized Volkswagen
Polo Motor Car, (which he has long admired), for Rs. 5, 00,000 the offer
to remain open until 5th November, 2018. But before the acceptance of
offer by Sohan ,Mohan Revoke it .

2. YES POSTAL CONTRACT ALSO VALID IF

BOOTHPARTYAGREEFOR MAKING A CONTRACT WITH
POSTAL SYESTEM

According to the Indian Contract Act, When the person to whom the
proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be
accepted. Thus, when a proposal is assented to by the offered, he is said
to have accepted the proposal. The communication of proposals, the
acceptance of proposals, and the revocation of proposals and
acceptance, respectively, are deemed to be made by any act or omission
of the party proposing, accepting or revoking, by which he intends to
communicate such proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the
effect of communicating it. The communication of an acceptance is
complete – as against the proposer when it is put in a course of
transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as
against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.
The communication of an Acceptance is only complete when the
knowledge of the acceptance reaches the proposer, the proposer receives
i.e. the letter containing the absolute and unqualified acceptance to the
terms of the offer. Here the words “puting the course of transmission”
implies that postal or telegram services can be used. Since the proposal
has been communicated using the postal service, any means of
communication which is faster than or at least equally efficient can be
used to communicate the acceptance. These methods are, however,
contingent to the provisions of the offer. If the proposal specifies a
particular method, then that method should be followed. Also, if there is
and urgency or the time-period is limited, an appropriate method should
be used.
3. AS PER SECTION 5 OF INDIA CONTRACT
ACT1872REVOCATION IS VALID?.
Section 5 define revocation of its acceptance is complete as against
the proposal , but now afterwards . An acceptance may be revoke at
any time before its acceptance is complete as against the acceptor,
but not afterwards.
4. THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT BY MOHAN.
Because no contract is made between Mohan and Sohan. Mohan
already revoke the contract before its acceptance.
5. MOHAN ALSO NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY
COMPENATION.
 WRITTEN PLEADINGS

1. NO THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OR AGGREMENT

BETWEEN THEM.

Because as per the Indian contract act if one party agree tosell
something to someone this is not a contract or agreement. In this case
Mohan On 1st November what happened On 1st November, 2018,
Mohan, from his home addressed at Hyderabad, wrote to Sohan at his
addressed at Bhillai, offering to sell him his customized Volkswagen
Polo Motor Car, (which he has long admired), for Rs. 5, 00,000 the offer
to remain open until 5th November, 2018. But before the acceptance of
offer by Sohan ,Mohan Revoke it . Now we can define a contract and
more importantly, understand what is “Not” a contract. A contract is an
accepted proposal (agreement) that is fully understood by the law and is
legally defined or enforceable by the law. So a contract is a legal
document that bestows upon the parties special rights (defined by the
contract itself) and also obligations which are introduced, defined and
agreed upon by all the parties of the contract.
2. YES POSTAL CONTRACT ALSO VALID IF
BOOTHPARTYAGREEFOR MAKING A CONTRACT
WITH POSTAL SYESTEM
According to the Indian Contract Act, When the person to whom
the proposal is made, signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is
said to be accepted. Thus, when a proposal is assented to by the
offeree, he is said to have accepted the proposal. The
communication of proposals, the acceptance of proposals, and the
revocation of proposals and acceptance, respectively, are deemed
to be made by any act or omission of the party proposing,
accepting or revoking, by which he intends to communicate such
proposal, acceptance or revocation, or which has the effect of
communicating it. The communication of an acceptance is
complete – as against the proposer when it is put in a course of
transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor;
as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the
proposer. The communication of an Acceptance is only complete
when the knowledge of the acceptance reaches the proposer, the
proposer receives i.e. the letter containing the absolute and
unqualified acceptance to the terms of the offer. Here the words
“putting the course of transmission” implies that postal or
telegram services can be used. Since the proposal has been
 communicated using the postal service, any means of
communication whichis faster than or at least equally efficient
can be used to communicate the acceptance. These methods are,
however, contingent to the provisions of the offer. If the proposal
specifies a particular method, then that method should be
followed. Also, if there is and urgency or the time-period is
limited, an appropriate method should be used.
3. AS PER SECTION 5 OF INDIA CONTRACT
ACT1872REVOCATION IS VALID?

Section 5 define revocation of its acceptance is complete as against the

proposal, but now afterwards. An acceptance may be revoke at any time
before its acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not
afterwards. The Indian Contract Act lays out the rules of revocation of
an offer in Section 5. It says the offer may be revoked any time before
the communication of the acceptance is complete against the
proposer/offeror. Once the acceptance is communicated to the proposer,
revocation of the offer is now not possible. Let us take the same
example of before. A accepts the offer and posts the letter on 10th July.
B gets the letter on 14th July. But for B(the proposer) the acceptance has
been communicated on 10th July itself. So the revocation of offer can
only happen before the 10th of July. Revocation of Acceptance Section
5 also states that acceptance can be revoked until the communication of
the acceptance is completed against the acceptor. No revocation of
acceptance can happen after such date. Again from the above example,
the communication of the acceptance is complete against A (acceptor)
on 14th July. So till that date, A can revoke his/her acceptance, but not
after such date. So technically between10th and 14th July, A can decide
to revoke the acceptance

4. THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT BY MOHAN.

Because no contract is made between Mohan and Sohan. Mohan already

revoke the contract before its acceptance.

5. MOHAN ALSO NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY

COMPENATION.

Because no contract is made between Mohan and Sohan. Mohan already

revoke the contract before its acceptance We know that two very
important aspects of a contract are the offer and the acceptance of the
offer. However, in the practical world of business and economics, the
communication of the offer and the acceptance and the timings of these
are also very important factors. Let us look at this communication
timeline and also learn about the revocation of an offer.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, the respondent, most humbly prays before the Hon’ble
court, to be graciously pleased to hold adjudge and declare that:

1. To dismiss the civil petition of plaintiff.

2. To declare that there was no contract b/w the Plaintiff and
Respondent.
3. To pass any other order which the Humble court may deem fit in
the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of Which is most humbly prayed and most respectfully submitted by

the Respondent.

Date: S/d _________________

MOHAN RESPONDENT
Through Counsel