Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

REVISED VERSION - Moot Court Problem

Veena, who suffered severe burn injuries, initially claimed her injuries were accidental but later accused her husband Akshay of setting her on fire before succumbing to her injuries. Following her death, charges were filed against Akshay and his family, leading to their acquittal by the Trial Court, but the Delhi High Court later convicted them based on Veena's dying declaration and other evidence. The convicted parties have appealed to the Supreme Court, and key issues include the reliability of the dying declarations and the involvement of the accused in cruelty and dowry demands.

Uploaded by

perfectlyimperfect1606
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

REVISED VERSION - Moot Court Problem

Veena, who suffered severe burn injuries, initially claimed her injuries were accidental but later accused her husband Akshay of setting her on fire before succumbing to her injuries. Following her death, charges were filed against Akshay and his family, leading to their acquittal by the Trial Court, but the Delhi High Court later convicted them based on Veena's dying declaration and other evidence. The convicted parties have appealed to the Supreme Court, and key issues include the reliability of the dying declarations and the involvement of the accused in cruelty and dowry demands.

Uploaded by

perfectlyimperfect1606
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

REVISED VERSION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Akshay and Veena got married on 15.09.2014 after a five-year relationship.

2. Veena, who held an M.A. in English, was giving tuition classes from their
newly rented home in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.

3. On 15.07.2019, Veena was admitted to a government hospital with 44% burn


injuries. Hospital records indicate she was brought in by her close friend,
Riya.

4. On the same day, Veena gave her first statement to the Head Constable,
stating that her injuries were accidental, caused by a burning candle. An FIR
was registered accordingly.

5. A second statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the same


day, after obtaining a fitness certificate from the attending doctor. This
statement was similar to the first, affirming the incident as accidental.

6. On 23.07.2019, a dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate


in the presence of Veena’s parents and brother, where Veena alleged that her
husband Akshay set her on fire.

7. Veena succumbed to her injuries on 14.08.2019. The FIR was then converted
to reflect charges under Section 302 IPC, Section 498A IPC, and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

8. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against:

• Akshay (husband)

• Ranjeet Singh (father-in-law)

• Sushma (mother-in-law)

• Seema (foster sister-in-law)

9. The Trial Court acquitted all accused on 08.05.2020, reportedly due to lack of
direct evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements.

10. The State of NCT of Delhi filed Criminal Appeal No. 0056/20 before the High
Court of Delhi challenging the acquittal.

11. On 17.10.2020, the Delhi High Court convicted:


• Akshay’s mother, father, and foster sister under Section 498A IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

12. The main accused, Akshay, was convicted under:

• Section 302 IPC (Murder)

• Section 498A IPC (Cruelty)

• Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961


The conviction was primarily based on:

• Veena’s dying declaration (23.07.2019)

• A letter from Veena to her friend Jamini

• Deposition of Srinu and Jamini

13. The convicted persons have preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, and the matter is currently pending adjudication.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the multiple dying declarations given by Veena can be relied upon to
convict the accused under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence corroborates the dying declaration and


supports the prosecution’s case?

3. Whether the conduct of the accused persons constitutes cruelty under Section
498A IPC?

4. Whether all four accused persons were involved in the demand for dowry under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy