____________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
____________________________________________________________________________________

ABBREVIATION…………………………………………………………………………….. 3

EXTENSION…………………………………………………………………………………… 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………… 4

LIST OF CASE LAWS………………………………………………………………………. 5-6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………… 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………… 8-9

STATEMENT OF CHARGE…………………………………………………………………...10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………….. 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………… 12-13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………. 14-27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………………………….. 33

2
ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

& And

¶ Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Anr. Another

u/s Under Section

Cr. Criminal

v. Versus

ed. Edition

etc. Etcetera

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

Govt. Government

HC High Court

r/w Read With

AIR All India Reporter

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Sr. Serial

PW Prosecution Witness

Sec Section

3
 _________________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
_____________________________________________________________________________

STATUES

● The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

● The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Section 3/4.
● The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

● The Indian Evidence Act, 1972

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

● RV Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure by K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai

● Commentary on Indian Penal Code by K.D. Gaur
● Indian Penal Code by Sarkar
● Indian Penal Code by Prof. S.N. Mishra
● Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

DICTIONARIES, ONLINE DATABASES & WEBSITES

● SCC Online
● Indian Kanoon
● Manupatra
● LexisNexis

4
_______________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF CASE LAWS

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sr. No. CASE NAME CITATIONS

1. Kans Raj vs State of Punjab AIR 2000 SCC 2324

2. Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010) 12 SCC 350

3. Babita v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2005 SC 678

4. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618

5. Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) (2013) [1962] INSC 229

6. Kaliyaperumal v. State of T.N AIR 2003 SC 382

7. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1998 SC 958

8. State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa AIR 2004 SC 1993

9. Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001)SC

10. State of UP v. Shobhnath Pandey (2014) 1996 AIR 2052

11. Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388

12. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 AIR 840

13. Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana 1997 9 SCC 759

14. State of UP v. Tej Narain [ 6 SCC 789]

5
15. State of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda Appeal (crl.) 1530-31 of 1995

16. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala 1985 CriLJ 1711

17. Hans Raj v. State of Punjab CRA-923-SB-2001

18. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra [2006 (1) SCC 681]

19. G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152

20. State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532

21. Brij Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661

22. Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of (2013) 4 SCC 551

Karnataka

23. Netai Ghosh and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal CRA/147/2017

24. Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48

25. Meera v. State 2020 SCC OnLine SC 31

6
 _______________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with Section 209 of
the CrPC, 1973.

Section 177:
Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-

Every offense shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.

Read with Section 209:

Commitment of case to Court of Session when offense is trial 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 offense 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, and until
the conclusion of the trial;
(C) Send to the 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 of Sessions.

7
_____________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS
______________________________________________________________________________________

1. The Act came into force in the year 1862 and has since then been amended many times.

2. Babita is a 21-year-old girl who completed her LL.B degree from B.O.S.S.U (Bawa Oswal South
School University) in 2012.

3. Babita’s parents were looking for a suitable match for quite some time and were enthusiastic when
Babita's marriage was fixed on 25.03.2013 and the marriage took place on 25.04.2013 in Loni
Ghaziabad.

4. Babita and Suraj’s marriage was a very grand affair in the city of Delhi.

5. After getting married, Babita went to her in-laws' house in Mandoli, Delhi.

6. At the time of marriage, Babita's father gave expensive cars, clothes, utensils, jewelry, furniture, and
other household things as dowry.

7. He also gave 5 crores cash to his son-in-law, Suraj.

8. A few days later, when Babita came to her father's house for a ceremony, she was silent and had marks
of assault on her body.

9. When Babita’s mother asked her about the above-mentioned injuries, she told her that her in-laws were
demanding cash and when she refused, they beat her a lot.

10. After this incident Babita took two lakhs cash and went back to her husband's house.

11. Babita’s parents tried to talk through this to Suraj’s parents but it was of no use & due to the political
influence of Suraj’s father they couldn’t approach the police or take any other recourse to resolve this.

8
 12. On 7th of March, 2020, Suraj called his mother-in-law to inform.

13. When Babita’s parents reached her in-laws’ home the police were present there and they were doing
their [Link] police officer told them that Babita's husband called and informed the police
about the unfortunate event.

14. Babita’s mother told the police officer that being a lawyer Babita can never commit suicide and
narrated all the incidences of assault committed against Babita for dowry.

15. The police then lodged an FIR against Babita’s husband, Suraj, and the in-laws u/s 304B, 498A & 306
IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

______________________________________________________________________________________

9
 STATEMENT OF CHARGE

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The charges are made out against the following persons

● Accused, Suraj Verma
● Accused’s father, Baburam Verma
● Accused’s mother, Sunita Verma
● Accused’s sister, Kanak
● Accused’s brother in law, Kamal

For the following charges

1. Section 304 B of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961
2. Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

_______________________________________________________________________________________

10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
_______________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1:
Whether Babita was subjected to harassment and demand of dowry?

ISSUE 2:
Whether Suraj is punishable for the dowry death of Babita?

ISSUE 3:
Whether Suraj’s parents are punishable for the dowry death of Babita?

ISSUE 4:
Whether other relatives, i.e. sisters, brother–in–laws are punishable for the dowry death of Babita?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1
WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF DOWRY?

It is humbly submitted before this court that the deceased, Babita was subjected to harassment and demand of
dowry which led her to her untimely death thereby attracting Sec. 304B, 498A and 306 of IPC r/w Sec. 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. According to the case details, Mr. Bansilal, at the time of the marriage,
had given expensive cars, clothes, utensils, jewelry, furniture, and other household things along with 5 crores
cash to his son-in-law, Suraj as dowry, which they had accepted and when Babita visited her home for the
ceremony, she was silent and had marks of assault on her body due to insufficient dowry and further demand
of the same. Such incidents happened to be reported by Babita to her parents frequently and hence due to
continued exposure to the state of immense fear, threat and agony, she had started to lose her mental balance.
These can be corroborated by the statement of Anand that Babita was often threatened by Suraj, which
provides a witness to the harassment and threats that were faced by Babita.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is humbly submitted before this court that Suraj is guilty of the offense of dowry death and cruelty under
Section 304B, Section 498A, 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All the essential elements
to attract the provisions of 304B IPC have been proved as her death occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances, as she died by hanging herself within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband and other relatives in connection with the demand for dowry. He is also liable
under Section 498A for subjecting her to cruelty which includes both mental and physical torture, and that the
demand for dowry is a form of cruelty. He is liable under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide due to the
constant demand of dowry and physical and mental harassment which drove her to the state of depression and
mental agony as they created a situation which they knew would the drive her to commit suicide thereby
falling within the ambit of S.306 IPC.
Hence, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Suraj is indeed liable for the offense of dowry death of
Babita.

12
 ISSUE 3
WHETHER SURAJ’S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is humbly submitted that Suraj’s parents are guilty of the offense of dowry death and cruelty under Section
304B, Section 498A, 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution relies on Section
113A and B of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption that if a woman dies within seven years
of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives
in connection with any demand for dowry, then it shall be presumed to be a dowry death. This presumption
can be drawn against all the accused in the case, including Suraj's parents. They had demanded and accepted
a huge amount of dowry during the marriage and Babita's mother testified that when Babita visited her parents'
home, she had marks of assault on her body and when she was asked, she said that her in-laws were demanding
cash, and when she refused, they beat her a [Link] were present in the house when Babita hanged herself
which indicates their negligence in preventing her from taking such an extreme step. This shows their
culpability and their active role in the commission of the crime.

ISSUE 4:

WHETHER OTHER RELATIVES, I.E. SISTER, BROTHER–IN–LAW ARE PUNISHABLE FOR

THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that other relatives i.e. sister, brother- in- law are guilty of
the offense of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A, 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. This is proved by the arguments advanced that they had knowledge of the demands
and harassment faced by Babita. They were well aware that Babita was under immense stress wherein she
required a psychiatric treatment, however they did nothing to alleviate her mental agony or prevent the
harassment or dowry demands which contributed to the ultimate death of Babita. Her statement is not credible
as she stated that Babita was an illiterate woman which is in contradiction with the statements of her brother,
Suraj who clearly stated that Babita was a well-educated woman. The prosecution relies on the principle of
common intention to prove the involvement of the other relatives in the dowry death.

13
______________________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
_______________________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1 :

WHETHER BABITA WAS SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DEMAND OF DOWRY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the deceased, Babita was subjected to harassment and
demand of dowry which led her to her untimely death thereby attracting Sec. 304B 498A and 306 of IPC r/w
Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Sec. 304 B (2) provides for the punishment in case of dowry death. It provides that “Whoever commits dowry
death shall be punished with imprison-ment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life.”
In view of the nature of the dowry offenses that are generally conducted in the privacy of home and in secrecy,
independent and direct evidence necessary for conviction is not easy to get. Accordingly the Amendment Act
43 of 1986 has inserted Section 113 A and B in the Evidence Act, 1872 shifting the burden of proof of
innocence on the part of the accused as against prosecution in the case of abetment of suicide by a married
woman and a wife’s death within a period of 7 years of marriage.

To make the offense deterrent, Sec. 498A prescribes a sentence of 3 years and also a fine for the husband of a
woman, who subject her to cruelty.
The ingredients are thus as follows:
● Demand of Dowry [1.1]
● Subject to harassment [1.2]

1.1 DEMAND OF DOWRY

As per Sec. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, "If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or
takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years, and with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount
of the value of such dowry, whichever is more", thus, taking or giving Dowry shall be punishable, with a term
not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than rupees 15 thousand or the amount of Dowry.

14
As per Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, "If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents
or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and
with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, thus demanding dowry is an illegal offense.

Sec. 304 B has affirmed that “dowry” shall have the same meaning as defined in Sec. 2(1) of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, which states that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
given either directly or indirectly-
(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or,
(b) By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the either party to the marriage
or to any other person
At or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not
include dower or mahar.

On careful perusal of the incidents which ultimately led to the untimely and unnatural death of Babita, It is
hereby contented that an educated woman who had graduated with LLB degree had been forced to give dowry
as a precondition for her marriage. Further, according to the capacity and status of the deceased’s father Mr.
Bansilal, at the time of the marriage, had given expensive cars, clothes, utensils, jewelry, furniture, and other
household things along with 5 crores cash to his son-in-law, Suraj as dowry, which they had accepted.
However, unsatisfied with the amount received at the time of marriage, after a few days of the marriage Suraj
and his family further pressurized Babita to get 2 Lakh rupees cash from her parents. On refusal of the same,
they beat her leaving scars on her skin. When Babita went to her father’s house for the ceremony she had
assault marks and after the enquiry of her mother regarding those marks, Babita narrated the incidents. Babita
complied with their demands and took 2 lakh cash back to her in-laws. These are further corroborated by the
statement of the deceased’s father, Mr. Bansilal, who further stated that these incidents continued to happen
and that too frequently.1

To further corroborate that Babita was subjected to demand of dowry, the statement of Suraj’s neighbor and
friend, Anand is to be relied upon. It is stated by him in his testimony that Suraj was a materialistic and money
minded person who always thinks about money. When his marriage was fixed, Suraj told Anand that Babita

1
Case details,p.1

15
is a rich party from whom they will get a lot of money as she is the single child of their parents, and as a
precondition for marriage, they will ask for a good dowry. 2

Further, Suraj had the required motive and that is the greed of dowry and money. He had a jewelry shop
located in Karol Bagh, Delhi. However, he had plans for opening his own grand gym and to further that
grandeur plan, he had been demanding cash and other further things for the same, and on refusal from Babita,
she would be subjected to beatings and mental agony. The statements of Suraj and his mother, Sunita state
that parents of Babita would threaten to implicate them in a dowry case, however, no intention or motive of
Babita’s parents to threaten can be established unless there was demand of dowry on repeated accounts made
by Suraj and his family.

The Supreme Court held that if there is evidence to show that the husband or his relatives demanded or
accepted gifts or valuables at or before the time of the marriage, it would be considered as dowry, even if it is
termed as customary gifts.3

1.2 SUBJECT TO HARASSMENT

Cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand, as stated by the Apex court in Pawan Kumar4, is
proved when demand for scooter and fridge, made soon after marriage by the husband and his relatives. The
deceased’s failure to meet the demand leading to repeated taunts and maltreatment. Quarrel taking place
between husband and deceased, regretting that it would be difficult to see her face in future are clear proof of
cruelty and maltreatment by husband and family members.

In the instant case, according to the statements of the Babita’s father, Bansilal, It is clear that after the giving
of demanded dowry of expensive gifts and 5 crore cash during marriage, just a few days later when Babita
visited her home for ceremony, she was silent and had marks of assault on her body due to insufficient dowry
and further demand of the same. On the enquiry of Babita’s mother about the above-mentioned injuries, Babita
told her that her in-laws were demanding cash and when she refused, they beat her a lot. Also it is important
to note that such incidents happened to be reported by Babita to her parents frequently and continued to

2
Ibid, p.11
3 Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935]
4 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1998) AIR 1998 SC 958

16
happen5. This clearly proves that Babita was subjected to cruelty and harassment in demand of dowry by her
in-laws.

The statement of the accused, his mother and his sister stated that after marriage Babita’s behavior became
strange and erratic. There had been no previous medical ailments and history of Babita before marriage,
thereby it can be inferred from the chain of events that happened soon after her marriage that she was under
severe emotional and mental distress due to the harassment and violence she was put through by Suraj and his
family. Their further statements state that her mental health deteriorated to the point where she required
psychiatric treatment 6. However, no other medical help was provided to Babita to help her restabilize her
mental health, inferring that there was no care from the side of her husband or in laws towards Babita.

According to the statement of the accused’s sister, Kanak, Babita’s mental balance was not right and she
would sometimes sweep again and again 7, which is again indicative of the intimidating environment she was
forced to put up with. Further, due to continued exposure to the state of immense fear, threat and agony, she
had started to lose her mental balance. Despite being an educated working woman, she was forced to engage
in home chores and threatened on a continuing basis affecting both her career and her mental state ultimately
leading to her suicide.

These can further be corroborated by the statement of Suraj’s neighbor and friend, Anand that Babita was
often threatened by Suraj, which provides a witness to the harassment and threats that were faced by Babita.
The Supreme Court has held that harassment includes any type of conduct that causes mental or physical
suffering or torture to the woman, and such harassment can be in the form of verbal abuse, demand for money
8
or property, taunts or any other similar behavior. Thus, this case suggests that if a woman repeatedly
complains about harassment and demands for dowry, it can be taken as evidence to prove that she was indeed
subjected to harassment. Making of complaints was enough to establish that the deceased was subjected to
harassment.9

Based, on these points, the prosecution can argue that Babita was indeed subjected to harassment and demand
for dowry by her in-laws, which ultimately led to her death by suicide.

5
Case details, P.1
6 Case details, P.10
7 Case details,p.10
8 In Babita v. State of Rajasthan (2017), AIR 2005 SC 678
9 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa (1997) AIR 1998 SC 958

17
 ISSUE 2 :

WHETHER SURAJ IS PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused, Suraj, is guilty of the offense of dowry death
and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A, 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
304B. Dowry death. -- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 10

Section 304 (B) should be read with section 113 (B) of Indian Evidence Act that says,
113B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has
committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death
The prosecution humbly contends that :
● Suraj can be liable under Sec. 304B [2.1]
That, the essential elements to attract the provisions of 304B I.P.C are below:
- death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances [2.1.1]
- within seven years of her marriage [2.1.2]
- soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband [2.1.3]
- for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry [2.1.4]
● Suraj can be held liable under Section 498A IPC [2.2]
- Wilful conduct of a nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide[2.2.1]
-Harassment to coerce 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.[2.2.2]
- Presumption [2.2.3]
● Suraj can be held liable under Section 306 IPC i.e abetment of suicide [2.3]

10
Kamesh Panjiyar vs State Of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388]

18
2.1 SURAJ CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER S.304B

The essential elements to attract the provisions of 304B I.P.C are below:

[2.1.1] Death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances

The requirement of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is being proven with respect to Babita. The witness
Bansilal, Babita's father, has stated , when Babita came to house for the ceremony, she was silent and had
marks of assault on her body and when asked about the said injuries, she told that her in-laws were demanding
cash, when she refused, they beat her a lot 11. It is not necessary that injury or burn must be the immediate
cause of death. If it is proved that the injury or burn accelerated the death or contributed to the cause of death,
then it would be sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 304B. 12

Moreover, her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, as she died by hangi ng herself.
Thus, both the requirements of Section 304B have been fulfilled in Babita's case.

In case of a death of a woman caused under the above circumstances, the husband and the husband’s relatives
will be presumed to have caused a “dowry death” and be liable for the offense, unless it is proved otherwise.
13
That is to say, the burden of proof shifts on the part of the accused to prove his innocence.

The Apex court said that in case of unnatural death of the deceased wife within seven years of marriage on
account of harassment of the deceased for not bringing more dowry the onus lies on accused to rebut
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. 14

[2.1.2] Within seven years of her marriage

According to the moot problem Babita got married on 25.04.2013 in Loni Ghaziabad and the unfortunate
incident of her death took place on 7th of March, 2020 when Suraj informed Babita's parents that Babita had
died by committing suicide15. Therefore, it can be inferred that Babita's death occurred within seven years of
her marriage, which fulfills the requirement of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

11
Case details, P.1
12 Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 382
13 Hans Raj v. State of Punjab CRA-923-SB-2001
14 State of Karnataka v. MV Manjunathegowda Appeal (crl.) 1530 -31 of 1995
15 Case Details, p.1

19
[2.1.3] Soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband

Babita was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members as Bansilal stated that
when Babita came to their house for a ceremony, she had marks of assault on her body and when her mother
asked her about it, she told them that her in-laws were demanding cash and when she refused, they beat her a
lot. 16
Also it is important to note Babita's behavior was reported to be strange and erratic after marriage, and her
mental health deteriorated to the point where she required psychiatric treatment. This suggests that she was
under severe emotional and mental distress due to the harassment and violence she was experiencing.
The term "soon before death" used in Section 304B IPC is not defined by the statute. However, various judicial
pronouncements have attempted to interpret the meaning of this term. The Supreme Court, in the case of
Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 17, has held that there is no hard and fast rule as to the exact
period of time that can be taken as "soon before death," and each case has to be decided on its own facts and
circumstances. In the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 18, the Supreme Court observed that "soon
before death" means "proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
death." In other words, there should be a connection between the harassment or cruelty and the death of the
woman.
In the present case, there is enough evidence presented through witness statements that Babita was subjected
to harassment and demand for dowry by her husband and in-laws and it is also testified that Babita died by
suicide within 7 year of her marriage. While the exact period of time between the harassment and the death of
Babita is not mentioned, it can be argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution esta blishes a
proximate and live link between the harassment and the death of Babita. Therefore, it can be argued that the
requirement of "soon before death" under Section 304B has been proven in this case.
Therefore, it seems that the requirement of 304B that 'soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband' is being proven with respect to Babita.

16
Ibid, p.1
17 Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) AIR 2003 SC 382
18 Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) SC

20
[2.1.4] For, or in connection with, any demand for dowry

Babita's father, Bansilal, stated that he gave a dowry of cash, clothes, utensils, furniture, and other household
items to Suraj at the time of the wedding. He also gave Suraj 5 crore in cash 19. This indicates that Suraj and
his family were demanding a substantial dowry from Babita's family.
As stated above, Babita had marks of assault on her body when she returned home after the wedding ceremony.
When her mother asked her about the injuries, Babita said that her in-laws were demanding cash and beat her
when she refused.20 This suggests that Babita was being subjected to physical violence for not meeting the
dowry demands.
When Babita returned to her husband's house after the ceremony, she took 2 lakh cash with her. This indicates
that the dowry demands were ongoing and that Babita had already paid a substantial amount to her in-laws.
Suraj's neighbor, Anand, stated that Suraj was a money-minded person and was looking forward to getting a
good dowry from Babita's family 21. This provides further evidence that Suraj was actively involved in the
dowry demands.
Overall, the witness statements clearly suggest that Suraj and his family were demanding a large dowry from
Babita's family and subjected her to physical and mental harassment when their demands were not met. This
led to Babita's deteriorating mental health and ultimately, her death by suicide. The Supreme Court held that
where a woman dies in unnatural circumstances within 7 years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or
harassment in connection with dowry demand, the accused can be presumed to have caused the death unless
proved otherwise.22
Therefore, Suraj could be held responsible for the dowry death of Babita under the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.

2.2 SURAJ CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 498A IPC

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-ished with impris onment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of
this section, “cruelty” means—

19
Case details,p.1
20 ibid,p.1
21 ibid, p.11
22 State of UP v. Tej Narain 2002 [ 6 SCC 789]

21
 (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.]

The essential elements to attract the provisions of 304B I.P.C are below:

[2.2.1] Wilful conduct of a nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide

It is humbly contented that the acts of Suraj and his family were intentional and voluntary. They were guided
by the greed of money which led them to threaten and physically abuse Babita in demand of dowry. Babita
was an educated woman who was a practicing lawyer and had a well established practice, however, her career
life was disrupted by the continued exposure to the physical, mental and emotional abuse that she was
subjected to by Suraj and his family. She was reduced to doing home chores and the severe intensity of the
threats made her lose her mental stability, as had been stated by Suraj, his mother and his sister.

She would be beaten up and mentally harassed to the extent that she had to be sent to the psychiatric institution,
however, even then Suraj and his family took no further medical recourse and did not pay any attention to her
health leading her to finally commit suicide. Even on the day when Babita hanged herself to death, Suraj’s
parents were sleeping peacefully whereby Babita was suffering internally.

According to the arguments advanced above, the nature of these wilful conduct has already been established.
Further, these chain of events clearly signify that Suraj and his family were mindful of the fact that their
actions were severely affecting Babita, however they failed to pay any attention clearly indicating the lack of
love and affection. These unbearing incidents finally drove Babita to commit suicide by hanging herself.

[2.2.2] Harassment to coerce 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.

It is humbly contented that based on the arguments advanced above, it has been established that Babita had
been harassed to coerce 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.

22
Dowry demand is included in the “unlawful demand” as contemplated under Explanation (b) of Section 498-
A; however, it need not be the only demand. The Supreme Court in Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State
of Karnataka,23, held that a demand of Rs 10,000 towards repayment of a society loan, though not a dowry
demand, was an unlawful demand sufficient to attract Section 498-A.

Therefore, the unlawful demands made by Suraj to advance his business of opening a grand gym and other
grandeur demands attract the provision of 498 A.

The court held that the term "cruelty" includes both mental and physical torture, and that the demand for dowry
is a form of cruelty.24
In a case of cruelty and dowry death, direct evidence is hardly available. It is the circumstantial evidence and
the conduct of the accused persons which are to be taken into consideration. 25

[2.2.3] PRESUMPTION

Under Section 113-A, Evidence Act mandates that when a woman commits suicide within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty as per
the terms defined in Section 498-A IPC, the court may presume that such suicide has been abetted by the
husband or the relative.26
Sec. 113-B Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry
death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person
to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such
person had caused the dowry death

2.3 SURAJ CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 306 IPC

Relying on the above arguments and further on the basis of the statements of the accused, Suraj and his mother,
Sunita, it was quite clear that after marriage Babita was kept in the state of immense pressure and fear due to
the constant demand of dowry and on refusal led to physical assault along with verbal and mental harassment
and which drove her to the state of depression and mental agony directly affecting her physical behavior as
well which ultimately led to her untimely death, thereby proving that they had created a situation which they

23
Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka (2013) 4 SCC 551
24 IG.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152
25 Netai Ghosh and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
26 Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48.

23
knew would the drive her to commit suicide and she actually did do it within a period of seven years of their
marriage, thereby falling within the ambit of S.306 IPC.

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 27, the Supreme Court held that abetment of suicide can
include mental or emotional harassment that drives the deceased to take their own life.

Further S.113A, Evidence Act presumes that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed
suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of
her husband subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of
the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

According to the statement of the accused’s sister, Kanak, Babita’s mental balance was not right and she
would sometimes sweep again and again 28, which is again indicative of the intimidating environment she was
forced to put up with. Further, due to continued exposure to the state of immense fear, threat and agony, she
had started to lose her mental balance.

Despite being an educated working woman, she was forced to engage in home chores and threatened on a
continuing basis affecting both her career and her mental state ultimately leading to her suicide.

Suraj had refused to provide medical treatment to Babita when she was ill, which further aggravated her mental
and physical condition. Suraj had created an environment of fear and intimidation around Babita, which made
it difficult for her to seek help or escape from the situation.

The Apex Court in Brij Lal 29 held that the accused husband liable under Section 306 IPC for abetting his wife
to commit suicide by setting fire to herself. The court held that from the very beginning the wife had an
unhappy married life because of the accused constantly demanding her to get money from her parents and the
household expenses were borne by her out of her salary. Besides tormenting her for more money, he also used
to beat her.

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 30: In this case, the Supreme Court held that abetment of suicide
can be inferred from the circumstances of the case, even if there is no direct evidence of the accused's

27
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618
28 Case details,p.10
29 Brij Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1989 SC 1661
30 Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) [1962] INSC 229

24
involvement. The court stated that the accused's conduct must have been such that it could reasonably be
expected to cause the deceased to commit suicide.

25
 ISSUE 3:

WHETHER SURAJ’S PARENTS ARE PUNISHABLE FOR THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that :

Suraj’s parents are guilty of the offense of dowry death and cruelty under Section 304B, Section 498A, 306
IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The prosecution relies on Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption t hat if a
woman dies within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or his relatives in connection with any demand for dowry, then it shall be presumed to be a
dowry death. This presumption can be drawn against all the accused in the case, including Suraj's parents.

The court held that the husband and his family members can be held liable for dowry death if it is proved that
they had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for dowry.31 The Court observed that it is not
necessary that the accused should have directly participated in causing the death, but their active role in the
commission of the offense can also make them liable 32 even if it cannot be established who among them
caused the death.
In Meera v. State33, a woman committed suicide in her matrimonial home after being subjected to cruelty at
the hands of her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in law for want of jewels, the bench held
that when an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the
daughter-in-law, it became a more serious offense and hence the mother in law did not deserve any leniency.

The prosecution humbly contends that

● Suraj’s parents can be held liable under Sec. 304B IPC [3.1]
● They can be held liable under Section 498A IPC [3.2]
● They can be held liable under Section 306 IPC i.e abetment of suicide [3.3]

31
Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388
32 Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana 1997 9 SCC 759
33 Meera v. State 2020 SCC OnLine SC 31

26
3.1 SURAJ’S PARENTS CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SEC. 304B IPC

(a) Their active involvement in the harassment and demand of dowry:

Suraj's parents are also equally responsible for the dowry death of Babita, as they had demanded and accepted
a huge amount of dowry during the marriage. Babita's mother also testified that when Babita visited her
parents' home, she had marks of assault on her body and when she was asked, she said that her in-laws were
demanding cash, and when she refused, they beat her a lot.

(b) Their presence at the time of the incident:

The fact that Suraj's parents were present in the house when Babita hanged herself indicates their negligence
in preventing her from taking such an extreme step. This shows their culpability and their active role in the
commission of the crime. when Babita hanged herself to death, Suraj’s parents were sleeping peacefully
whereby Babita was suffering internally.

(c) Witness statements

According to the statements of Suraj’s mother, Babita had pushed her from the bed many times, after which
she used to laugh. Further she stated that she used to threaten to hang them on refusal 34. However, these claims
have no basis and can’t be established as these are untrue and without any merits. They suffer from various
flaws as they have not corresponded with Suraj’s statements, and weren’t reported to the police authorities as
well, which indicates that these are false statements. Further, no motive or intention of Babita can be
established to engage in such behavior.
These clearly indicate that Suraj’s mother intends to hide her acts of harassment and mental agony that she
subjected Babita to. They also clearly indicate the animosity and dislike that she shared for Babita thereby
refraining to help prevent her suicide.

Further, she states that Babita’s parents threatened to implicate them in a dowry case, however no intention or
motive to do the same can be established unless Suraj’s parents had actually demanded for dowry on multiple
occasions and on refusal, would subject Babita to cruelty and harassment.

34
Case details,p.10

27
The court held that in cases of dowry death, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the active
involvement of each accused in causing the death. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves that the accused
persons were in a position to exercise control over the deceased and that they had subjected her to cruelty or
harassment for dowry.35

3.2 THEY CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SEC. 498A

Suraj's parents, along with Suraj, subjected Babita to cruelty by making demands for dowry, harassing her,
and causing mental and physical torture. The fact that Babita died by suicide due to the continuous harassment
and torture meted out to her by her in-laws is evidence enough to prove their culpability.
On the basis of the statements of the accused, Suraj and his mother, Sunita, it was quite clear that Babita's
behavior was reported to be strange and erratic after marriage, and her mental health deteriorated to the point
where she required psychiatric treatment. This suggests that she was under severe emotional and mental
distress due to the harassment and violence she was experiencing. Thereby proving that they have caused
cruelty thereby falling within the ambit of S. 498A IPC.

3.3 THEY CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SEC. 306 IPC ( ABETMENT OF SUICIDE)

As proved that they were actively involved in harassing and demanding dowry from Babita, which led to her
mental and emotional trauma.
They were aware of the mental and emotional trauma that Babita was going through and yet they did not take
any steps to stop it. And when Babita’s parents tried to talk through this to Suraj’s parents it failed as they
were reluctant & due to the political influence of Suraj’s father they couldn’t take any other recourse to resolve
this.
Suraj's parents provided support and encouragement to Suraj's actions, which ultimately led to Babita's suicide.
Suraj's parents created a hostile environment for Babita, which pushed Babita to take the extreme step of
committing suicide
The Apex Court in Iqbal Singh case 36, held that the accused-husband, mother-in law and sister-in-law are
liable for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC for creating such circumstances which provoked or forced
the deceased to commit suicide. Soon after their marriage there were disputes between them on the question

35
State of UP v. Shobhnath Pandey 1996 AIR 2052
36 State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532

28
of dowry that led to ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased. Being fed up on account of ill treatment and
beating by her husband, torture and humiliation by his family members she finally ended her life and the life
of her children. Endorsing the trial court’s view, the Apex Court held in such a situation the conduct of the
person would tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing her to put an end to her miseries by
committing suicide.

29
 ISSUE 4:

WHETHER OTHER RELATIVES, I.E. SISTER, BROTHER–IN–LAW ARE PUNISHABLE FOR

THE DOWRY DEATH OF BABITA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that :

Other relatives i.e. sister, brother- in- law are guilty of the offense of dowry death and cruelty under Section
304B, Section 498A, 306 IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court has held in the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab (2000) 37that "the definition of 'relative'
in Section 304B is an inclusive definition and is not restricted only to the enumerated relatives. It includes all
those who are related by birth, marriage or adoption."

The Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra 38, noted that:
“The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in
the last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husband or in-laws have
gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed
in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence.
No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against
other family members. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene
of commission of crime are nor in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real
accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it
does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished.”

This can be proved by the following arguments:

● Demand of dowry and Knowledge of harassment faced by Babita [4.1]
● Lack of credibility in her statement [4.2]
● Principle of common intention [4.3]

4.1 DEMAND OF DOWRY AND KNOWLEDGE OF HARASSMENT FACED BY BABITA

37
Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2000 SCC 2324]
38 Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra [2006 (1) SCC 681]

30
Babita's sister-in-law and brother-in-law were also responsible for the dowry death as during marriage they
had kept demands of a hefty amount of money and other gifts as dowry by stating that their father was a
business tycoon with huge political influence and that her brother was a young charming person with a good
reputation and was well placed.
Further, they had the knowledge of the demands and harassment faced by Babita after marriage. Their
knowledge of the mental agony and cruelty that Babita was faced through is apparent from the the statement
of the accused’s sister, Kanak, wherein she stated that Babita’s mental balance was not right and she would
sometimes sweep again and again 39, which is again indicative of the intimidating environment she was forced
to put up with. Further, due to continued exposure to the state of immense fear, threat and agony, she had
started to lose her mental balance. They were well aware that Babita was under immense mental agony wherein
she required a psychiatric treatment, however after the failure of the treatment, they did not refer for a second
opinion or further help to alleviate her mental agony or prevent the harassment or dowry demands which
contributed to the ultimate death of Babita.
Despite being an educated working woman, she was forced to engage in home chores and threatened on a
continuing basis affecting both her career and her mental state ultimately leading to her suicide by Suraj’s
family.

4.2 LACK OF CREDIBILITY IN HER STATEMENT

Further, her statements stated that Babita was an illiterate woman which is erroneous and a distortion of the
truth, which is further in contradiction with the statements of her brother, Suraj who clearly stated that Babita
was a well educated woman who had completed her LLB degree and was a practicing lawyer. Therefore, it
raises a question on the credibility of the statements of Kanak. Further, she states that she wasn’t present when
these incidents occurred which are incorrect and misleading and can’t be relied upon as there is no proof of
the same and the evidence of their whereabouts can’t be established. Therefore, They can be held liable under
Section 304B read with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which punishes cruelty by husband or his
relatives towards a woman.

39
Case details,p.10

31
4.3 PRINCIPLE OF COMMON INTENTION

The prosecution relies on the principle of common intention to prove the involvement of the other relatives in
the dowry death. If it can be shown that the other relatives were part of a common plan or had a shared intention
to harass and demand dowry from Babita, and can also be held responsible for the dowry death.
In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 40 The Supreme Court held that the principle of common intention
can be invoked to establish the involvement of other relatives in a dowry death case i f it can be shown that
they had a shared intention to cause the death of the victim or had a common plan to subject her to cruelty and
demand dowry.
In the case, Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala 41 The Supreme Court held that if it can be shown that the other
relatives were aware of the harassment and demand of dowry by the husband and were actively supporting
him in his actions, then they can also be held responsible for the dowry death under the principle of common
intention.

40
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 AIR 840
41 Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala 1985 CriLJ 1711

32
 ______________________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

_______________________________________________________________________________________

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsels on behalf
of the Prosecution humbly pray before the Court of Sessions Judge, Karkardooma to kindly adjudge and
declare that:

1. Convict the deceased's husband, Suraj, the in laws for the offense of committing dowry death under Sections
304B, 498A and 306 IPC r/w section 3 and 4 of Dowry Act,1961.

2. Declare a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.

AND/OR
Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience,
and for this act of kindness the Counsels on behalf of the Prosecution as in duty bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

_______________________________
SD/-
Counsels for Prosecution

33