INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

TEAM CODE: BIL-05

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

BHARATH INSTITUTE OF LAW

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

IN THE MATTER OF:

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NO._____ OF 2024

ARAVIND……………………………………………………………. PETITIONER(S)

V.

STATE OF SINDORIA .............................................................. RESPONDENT(S)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

ARYAVARTA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT DRAWN AND FILED BY THE

COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT(S)

1
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT Pg. NO

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................... 04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... 05

I. CASE LAWS ......................................................................................................... 05

II. JOURNALS ........................................................................................................... 06

III. BOOKS REFERRED ............................................................................................. 06

IV. LEXICONS ………………………………………………………………………… 06

V. WEBSITES .............................................................................................................07

VI. LEGISLATIONS AND REGULATIONS ...............................................................07

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………08

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….09

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….......12

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS .........................................................................................14

ISSUE -1

WHETHER ARAVIND’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE "ABETMENT" TO SUICIDE

UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE ARYAVARTIAN PENAL
CODE?....................................................14
1.1 ESTABLISHING ABETMENT THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE...….14
1.2 MENTAL HEALTH AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ABETMENT ……………………..15
1.3 DOWRY HARASSMENT AS A FORM OF ABUSE LEADING TO SUICIDE……..15
1.4 SOCIAL AND FAMILY PRESSURE AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR …………..16
ISSUE -2

WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF DOWRY HARASSMENT WERE SUFFICIENTLY

SUBSTANTIATED TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION? ................................................18
2
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

2.1 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF DOWRY

HARASSMENT …………………………………………………………………………..18
2.2 IMPACT OF SOCIAL PREASSURE AND DOWRY EXPECTATION …..………...19
2.3 KAVITHA’S MENTAL HEALTH AND THE ROLE OF ABUSE…………………..19
2.4 UNMET DOWRY DEMANDS AND FABRICATED DEFENCE………...…………20

ISSUE -3

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED KAVITHA’S MENTAL

HEALTH AS A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO HER SUICIDE? ................................ 21
3.1 THE ROLE OF DOWRY HARASSMEENT AND CRUELTY IN
KAVITHA’S MENTAL HEALTH ………………………………………………………21
3.2 MENTAL HEALTH AND ABUSE: EXPLORING THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT…………………………………………………………….22
3.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE LINKING ABUSE TO SUCIDE …..………..22
3.4 EVALUATING THE DEFENSE’S CLAIM OF MENTTAL
HEALTH AS THE SOLE CAUSE………………………………………………………...23

ISSUE -4

WHETHER THE LAW CONCERNING DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ABETMENT

NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO PREVENT
MISUSE………………………….24

4.1 EXISTING LAW ON DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ABETMENT

TO SUICIDE.……………………………………………………………………………...24

4.2 THE EVIDENCE OF DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON

KAVITHA’S MENTAL HEALTH...…….………....……………………………………25

4.3 SAFE GUARDS AGAINST MISUSE OF THE LAW

SHOULD BE PRESERVED………………………………………………….…………..25

4.4 THE LAW SHOLD CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON PROTECTING

VULNERABLE VICTIMS……………………………………………………………….26

PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………...27

3
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[Link] ABBREVATION FULL FORM

1) & And

2) AC Appeal Cases

3) ACC. TO According To

4) AIR All India Reporter

6) CRPC The Code of Criminal Procedure

7) H.C High Court

8) Hon’ble Honorable

9) IPC Indian Penal Code

10) i.e., That Is

11) J. Justice

12) BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

13) BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

14) P. Pages

15) Pet. Petitioner

16) r/w Read With

17) Res. Respondent

18) S.C Supreme Court

19) S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

20) S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

21) Sec / S. Section

23) v. Versus

4
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASE LAWS

[Link] CASE TITLE CITATIONS

1. CHANDRAN V. STATE OF KERALA (2018) 4 SCC 336
2. GURCHARAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1995) 1 SCC 589
3. K.M. NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1961) 2 SCR 567
4. K.N. BHATIA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2008) 8 SCC 144
5. KESAR DEVI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2017) 6 SCC 292
6. LAXMI DEVI V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1999) 5 SCC 256
7. MANOJ KUMAR V. STATE OF U.P. (2009) 14 SCC 544
8. RAGHUBIR SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (2009) 13 SCC 627
9. RAJESH SHARMA V. STATE (2012) 8 SCC 537
10. SANDEEP V. STATE OF HARYANA (2004) 12 SCC 614
11. SATISH KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA (2006) 10 SCC 451
12. SONIYA V. STATE OF HARYANA (2006) 10 SCC 252
13. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH V. RAMESH KUMAR (2010) 12 SCC 164
14. STATE OF HARYANA V. SANDEEP (2004) 12 SCC 579
15. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MANIKRAO (1985) 2 SCC 537
16. SURESH V. STATE OF HARYANA (2015) 5 SCC 738
17. SAMAR GHOSH V. JAYA GHOSH (2007) 4 SCC 511
18. SUMAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2010) 10 SCC 129
19. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. NARSINGH (2008) 16 SCC 135
20. STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. KALYAN SINGH (2014) 4 SCC 715
21. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. MUNNA LAL (2001) 7 SCC 77
22. JAGMOHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (2010) 12 SCC 259
23. SUSHIL KUMAR V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2013) 2 SCC 636
24. VIKRAM SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2005) 12 SCC 369
25. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MARUTI SRIPATI 1987 SCR (1) 493
DUBAL
26. RAMESH KUMAR V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2001) 9 SCC 618
27. B.M.B. SUBBARAO V. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH (2009) 2 SCC 702

5
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

II. JOURNALS

I. All India Reporter (AIR)

II. Supreme Court Cases (SCC)
III. Supreme Court Reporter (SCR)

III. BOOKS REFRRED

1. K. A. Pandey, Indian Penal Code (EBC Publication 14th Ed. 2018).

2. [Link] pillai ,Criminal Procedure Code (EBC Publication 7th Ed. 2020).
3. [Link] , Civil Procedure Code (EBC Publication 9th2020).

IV. LEXICONS
I. [Link] - Wharton’s Law Lexicon

II. Henry Campbell Black - Black’s Law Dictionary

III. Jonathan & Elizabeth [Link] – Oxford Dictionary of Law

IV. P. RamanathaAiyar - Concise Law Dictionary

6
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

V. WEBSITES
i. [Link]
ii. [Link]
iii. [Link]
iv. [Link]
v. [Link]

VI. REFERRED LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS

LEGISLATIONS

I. INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860.

II. THE CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

III. THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,1908.

7
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta under Article
136 in Constitution of Aryavarta .

The Appellant has filed an appeal invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Session Court
seeking Appeal from conviction and to undertake appropriate proceeding in the appeal as
conferred by CHAPTER 30 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

Wherein, Article 136 in Constitution of India reads as under:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1)Not withstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2)Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

8
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Count the facts of the present case are
summarized as follows;
BACKGROUND

Aravind, a 39-year-old man, married Kavitha who is 36-year-old in the year 2022, after the year of
marriage their marital life become disputes. Primarily due to Kavitha’s `emotional distress and
difficulties in adjusting marital life. Aravind believed these were typical martial disagreements and
did not constitute cruelty or harassment.

MENTAL HEALTH
The couple in the initial stages was full of tensions and constant arguments among them. Kavitha
exhibited symptoms of mental illness, which is characterized by depression. Both Aravind and
Kavitha attended marriage counseling in an effort to address the mental strain and emotional
challenges in their relationship.

DEATH OF KAVITHA
In 2024, one evening after a particular dispute with Aravind, Kavitha took her own life by hanging.
The family of Kavitha accused Aravind of constant cruel treatment, including dowry demands,
which they insisted caused her suicide.

CRIMINAL CHARGES
As for the statements given by Kavitha's family members, Aravind was arrested under Section 108
of the Aryavartian Penal Code, for "Abetment to suicide". The lower courts have mainly awarded
conviction in this case based on testimonies of members of Kavitha's family and societal
assumptions of dowry harassment.

9
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

Aravind's appeal to the High Court of Sindoria was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld,
despite the lack of direct evidence linking Aravind’s actions to Kavitha’s suicide by the lower court.
Aravind has now appealed the conviction to the supreme court of Aryavarta, arguing that the lower
court's decision was flawed.

TIMELINE AT EVENTS
PERIOD INCIDENT
2022 Aravind and Kavitha got married
03/July/2024 Death – 07:42 (police noticed)
04/July/ 2024 FIR and Arrest
15/Sep/2024 Trail (lower court), conviction
06/Oct/2024 Appeal at Hon’ble High court of Sindoria

Hence the present dispute

10
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER ARAVIND’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE "ABETMENT" TO SUICIDE

UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE ARYAVARTIAN PENAL CODE?

II. WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF DOWRY HARASSMENT WERE

SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIATED TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION?

III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED KAVITHA’S

MENTAL HEALTH AS A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO HER SUICIDE?

IV. WHETHER THE LAW CONCERNING DOWRY HARASSMENT AND

ABETMENT NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO PREVENT MISUSE?

11
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1
WHETHER ARAVIND’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE "ABETMENT" TO SUICIDE
UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE ARYAVARTIAN PENAL CODE?

Kavitha committed suicide due to Aravind's emotional abuse, according to the Respondent.
Kavitha's family's testimony was crucial to proving Aravind's dowry demands, the Respondent says.
This marital dispute stressed mental health patient Kavitha.
Family members said Kavitha told them about abuse and dowry pressures. According to the
Respondent, these accounts show that Aravind's actions were a deliberate campaign of coercion and
cruelty to gain material benefits from his wife's family. The Respondent claims Kavitha committed
suicide due to her mental anguish from emotional and physical abuse and societal pressures as a
wife. The Respondent also claims Aravind dismissed his wife's mental health issues as marital. He
says their arguments were "normal," but the Respondent says Kavitha's distress was unusual. Her
husband's abuse did it. The Respondent believes the lower court evidence was sufficient. Her
family's testimony and her mental decline support Aravind's role in Kavitha's suicide. The
conviction should stand because the prosecution proved suicide abetment under Section 108 of the
Aryavartian Penal Code.

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF DOWRY HARASSMENT WERE
SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIATED TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION?

The Respondent says Aravind's dowry harassment claims are supported by evidence and testimony.
Kavitha's family said Aravind's family wanted Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry, but they only gave Rs. 5
lakhs. The remaining funds were never given. Financial strain and allegations of verbal and physical
abuse made Kavitha's environment oppressive, worsening her mental health. Kavitha's emotional
abuse and dowry demands damaged her mental health, which led to her suicide, according to the
Respondent. Kavitha's family says her mental health is deteriorating and she has many emotional
issues. The abuse claim is supported. After Kavitha's death, the prosecution claims the accusations
were based on her actual experiences. The conviction for aiding suicide should stand.

12
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED KAVITHA’S
MENTAL HEALTH AS A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO HER SUICIDE?

The Respondent believes the trial court did the right thing by recognizing Kavitha's mental health as
a major cause of her suicide and not downplaying Aravind's alleged abuse and dowry harassment.
The prosecution claims that Aravind's dowry pressure and emotional and physical abuse worsened
Kavitha's mental health. The respondent says Kavitha's mental health issues were obvious but
shouldn't be examined alone. Aravind's abuse left her hopeless. Kavitha's family said the dowry
demands made her emotionally unstable and worsened her mental health. The Respondent believes
the court did the right thing by considering Kavitha's mental health in the context of abuse and
dowry harassment. The prosecution claims that Aravind's actions caused her emotional distress and
suicide. The trial court correctly convicted Aravind of aiding suicide because his actions caused
Kavitha's death.

ISSUE4
WHETHER THE LAW CONCERNING DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ABETMENT
NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO PREVENT MISUSE?

Respondent says Section 108 of the Aryavartian Penal Code covers dowry harassment and suicide
aid, but it must be applied fairly to treat everyone equally. The Respondent claims that dowry
harassment laws protect women from being exploited and abused, but they also protect anyone from
being pressured or hurt. Aravind's long-term abuse, emotional distress, and dowry pressures killed
Kavitha. Though abuse is possible, the Respondent highlights that the solution is to enforce laws
strictly, investigate thoroughly, and hold fair trials. The claims of abuse, especially physical and
verbal harm, were supported by reliable witnesses, including Kavitha's family. The prosecution
alleges that Aravind's dowry harassment caused Kavitha's mental anguish and tragic death. The
Respondent believes the legal framework should be used carefully to prevent abuse but not
weakened. Better training and awareness for judges should help them distinguish real abuse and
dowry harassment from false accusations. Dowry demands abuse victims like Kavitha emotionally,
mentally, and physically, and the law should protect victims.

13
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1
WHETHER ARAVIND’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE "ABETMENT" TO SUICIDE
UNDER SECTION 108 OF THE ARYAVARTIAN PENAL CODE?

1) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution would present arguments
in support of Aravind's conviction for abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the Aryavartian
Penal Code in the context of the appeal. The prosecution will argue that Aravind's particular actions
meet Section 108 abetment. Kavitha's family stated mental cruelty and emotional distress from
verbal abuse and harassment. Aravind's cruel demands and treatment forced Kavitha to suicide.
Psychological torture can influence her decision, meeting the legal abetment requirement even
without physical abuse. The prosecution's case is predicated on the following points, which are
intended to rebut Aravind's defence and maintain the original decision.

1.1 ESTABLISHING ABETMENT THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

2) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution may contend that the
defendant's actions, particularly the purported dowry harassment, are a clear example of abetment to
suicide. Although there is no direct evidence that a single act caused Kavitha's death, the cumulative
effect of Aravind's alleged abusive behaviour can be interpreted as contributing to her mental
distress. The prosecution may argue that abetment does not necessitate direct evidence, but can be
proven through circumstantial evidence that demonstrates the accused's actions contributed to the
victim's death. This principle is substantiated by case law, including the Supreme Court's ruling in
State of Maharashtra v. Manikrao (1985)1, which established that abetment could be proven
through circumstantial evidence, particularly when the accused's actions or omissions created a
situation that contributed to the victim's death. Furthermore, Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015)2
underscored that abetment can be deemed to have occurred if the accused's conduct contributed to
the victim's extreme suicide, even in the absence of direct evidence of the victim's interactions with
the accused at the time of death.

1
State of Maharashtra v. Manikrao 1985 2 SCC 537.
2
Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) 5 SCC 738.

14
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

3) In State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987),3 the Supreme Court discussed suicide
abetment criteria. It underscored that the accused's actions must have prompted the victim's suicide.
And also, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) Abetment to suicide occurs when the
accused directly or indirectly causes the victim to commit suicide, according to the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that abetment can occur if the accused creates a hostile environment or intense
mental anguish.

1.2 MENTAL HEALTH AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ABETMENT

4) The prosecution has the ability to argue that Aravind's actions are to blame for Kavitha's suicide,
despite the fact that her mental health was fragile. She may have made the fatal decision due to the
mental strain caused by his alleged dowry harassment and verbal abuse, which could have
exacerbated her depressive episodes. The prosecution would contend that Aravind's treatment of
Kavitha directly contributed to her decision to end her life, even if she had pre-existing mental
health conditions, as it intensified her vulnerability. This is corroborated by case law, such as
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), in which the court determined that the victim's mental state,
which may be influenced by abusive behaviour or constant humiliation, could result in a
determination of abetment. In this instance, the husband's abusive treatment of his wife, who was
already grappling with mental health issues, was perceived as a contributing factor to her suicide.
Additionally, in Chandran v. State of kerala (2018)4, the Supreme Court determined that the
actions of the accused that resulted in emotional distress to the victim could still be considered
abetment if they significantly contributed to the victim's psychological state at the time of suicide,
notwithstanding the fact that the victim had mental health issues.

1.3 DOWRY HARASSMENT AS A FORM OF ABUSE LEADING TO SUICIDE

5) The prosecution can argue that the pressure to satisfy dowry demands is still a reality in
Aryavarta, despite the abolition of the dowry system. Kavitha's suicidal state may have been
exacerbated by Aravind's purportedly persistent dowry demands, which could be interpreted as a
form of emotional abuse and coercion. The court's perception of the dynamics in this marriage can
still be influenced by the broader cultural context and societal expectations surrounding marriage
and dowry in Aryavarta, even if the dowry harassment allegations are contested by Aravind.

3
State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987) SCR 1 493.
4
Chandran v. State of kerala (2018) 4 SCC 336.

15
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

6) This is corroborated by case law, such as Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006)5, in which
the court determined that allegations of dowry harassment, even when contestable, could establish a
pattern of coercive behaviour that resulted in an unbearable environment for the victim, ultimately
leading to her suicide. Circumstantial evidence could show that Kavitha's dowry harassment caused
her mental distress and suicide. Section 304B of Aryavartian Penal Code6 addresses dowry deaths,
but the prosecution may argue that it links dowry-related harassment to severe emotional harm,
which can lead to suicide. Kavitha's death was not directly caused by dowry demands, but the
prosecution will argue that her emotional and psychological abuse influenced her tragic decision.
This could set a precedent for recognizing the mental health effects of dowry harassment, which can
lead to suicide. The court in Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010)7 determined that dowry
harassment and abuse are forms of emotional violence that can directly contribute to the victim's
decision to end her life, even if other factors, such as mental health issues, were also present.

1.4 SOCIAL AND FAMILY PRESSURE AS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR

7) The prosecution can also point out the pressure that Kavitha may have experienced as a result of
societal expectations, which were further exacerbated by Aravind's alleged behaviour. Kavitha may
have been subjected to an oppressive environment as a result of the expectations that surrounded
married life in Aryavarta, as well as the additional burden of dowry demands. The prosecution
contends that Aravind's actions were directly linked to the creation of this harmful environment,
which can be interpreted as a contributing factor to her suicide. In the case of Manoj Kumar v.
State of U.P. (2009), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for abetment to suicide in a situation
where the victim's suicide was influenced by social and family pressures, including dowry demands.
This argument is supported by case law. The victim's decision was significantly influenced by the
abusive behaviour of the accused, according to the court. The court in State of Rajasthan v. Kesar
Devi (2017)8 determined that societal pressure, particularly in relation to marital roles and dowry
expectations, could be a factor in determining the accused's responsibility for the victim's suicide.

5
Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006)10 SCC 252
6
Section 304B of Aryavartian Penal Code- 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.
7
Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 129
8
State of Rajasthan v. Kesar Devi (2017) 6 SCC 292

16
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

8) Therefore, by arguments raised and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully submitted
before this Hon’ble court that the respondent would argue that Aravind's verbal and physical abuse
and dowry pressure created a toxic environment that caused Kavitha's emotional and mental
distress. Kavitha committed suicide due to the abuse and societal and familial expectations.
Circumstantial evidence can help the prosecution prove Aravind abetted under Section 108 of the
Aryavartian Penal Code.

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF DOWRY HARASSMENT WERE SUFFICIENTLY
SUBSTANTIATED TO JUSTIFY THE CONVICTION?

9) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution contends that the
allegations of dowry harassment were sufficiently substantiated to justify Aravind's conviction for
abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the Aryavartian Penal Code in this instance. The
prosecution will concentrate on presenting evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that
substantiates the assertion that Aravind's actions were a contributing factor to Kavitha's mental
distress and her tragic decision to take her own life.

2.1 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF DOWRY HARASSMENT

10) The prosecution would contend that the allegations of dowry harassment were corroborated by
testimonies, circumstantial evidence, and the fact that Aravind's family had requested Rs. 10 lakhs
in dowry, of which only Rs. 5 lakhs were granted. The prosecution maintains that Kavitha's suicide
was the result of an unbearable amount of pressure caused by the demands for dowry and the
emotional abuse she endured, despite the fact that the full payment was not made. Kavitha's family
was subjected to significant emotional turmoil as a result of unmet dowry demands, which further
substantiates the claim of dowry harassment. This is in accordance with case law, the Supreme
Court in Kesar Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 9determined that the emotional and psychological
toll that continuous dowry harassment can inflict is not diminished by even partial fulfilment of
dowry demands. The connection between harassment and suicide was established by the victim's
testimony and the pressure of dowry demands.

9
Kesar Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 6 SCC 292

17
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

11) In B. M. B. Subba Rao v. State of A.P. (2009)10, the Court ruled that repeated dowry demands,
cruel treatment, or mental harassment can prove dowry harassment without physical abuse. The
prosecution can argue that Aravind's dowry demands and verbal abuse of Kavitha caused mental
harassment, as her family saw her emotional distress. They may claim that Kavitha's suffering,
despite the lack of physical violence, qualifies as dowry harassment, and her family's testimony
supports it.

2.2 IMPACT OF SOCIETAL PRESSURE AND DOWRY EXPECTATIONS

12) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution may contend that Kavitha
was subjected to an oppressive environment as a result of the societal expectations that were further
exacerbated by Aravind's dowry demands. Kavitha's emotional breakdown and eventual suicide
would have been exacerbated by the pressure to satisfy her family's expectations and Aravind's
demand for the remaining Rs. 5 lakhs of dowry. In Aryavarta, where dowry remains a significant
component of marriage despite legal prohibitions, these societal norms would have exacerbated the
pressure on Kavitha, causing her to feel inadequate and confined. This argument is substantiated by
case law, including Suman v. State of Rajasthan (2010), in which the court determined that dowry
demands and societal pressure associated with dowry payments could be regarded as forms of
psychological abuse. The victim's mental distress and subsequent suicide were significantly
influenced by her inability to meet these expectations, in addition to the accused's demands. In the
same vein, the court in Chandran v. State (2018) underscored the potential for societal pressures
associated with dowry to exacerbate mental health issues in the victim. If the dowry harassment was
demonstrated to have contributed to the victim's distress, the court would find abetment to suicide.

2.3 KAVITHA’S MENTAL HEALTH AND THE ROLE OF ABUSE

13) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution could contend that
Aravind's conduct exacerbated Kavitha's pre-existing mental health issues. The allegations of dowry
harassment, emotional abuse, and the societal pressures she encountered as a result of the
incomplete dowry payment significantly contributed to her mental decline. Aravind's actions in
establishing an abusive environment could be interpreted as the precipitating factor for the victim's
suicide, regardless of her prior history of mental illness, by the prosecution.

10
B. M. B. Subba Rao v. State of A.P. (2009) 2 SCC 702

18
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

14) This is corroborated by case law, such as Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)11, in which the
court determined that the accused's abusive behaviour could still be the proximate cause of the
suicide, even if a victim had pre-existing mental health issues. The victim's depressive state was
precipitated by emotional abuse from the accused, which ultimately resulted in her tragic death. In
Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. (2009), the court determined that the victim's mental health must be
taken into account in the context of the accused's behaviour. The victim's suicide was determined to
be significantly influenced by dowry harassment and continuous emotional abuse, despite her pre-
existing mental health issues. State of Maharashtra v. Narsingh (2008) 12In this instance, The court
determined that "cruelty" includes not only physical harm but also mental cruelty, such as persistent
demands for dowry or threats regarding the financial obligations of marriage. In this instance, the
prosecution could argue that Aravind's actions, despite not being explicitly violent, established an
emotionally abusive environment for Kavitha. The prosecution may use Section 498A of
Aryavartian Penal Code13 to prove Aravind harassed Kavitha over dowry. The family's claims of
repeated dowry demands and verbal and physical abuse indicate cruelty. Dowry harassment and
mental suffering may have caused Kavitha's emotional distress and suicide, as Section 498A
addresses. This section holds Aravind responsible for Kavitha's mental cruelty if dowry harassment
is proven.

2.4 UNMET DOWRY DEMANDS AND FABRICATED DEFENSE

15) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution could argue that
Aravind's defence that the dowry harassment allegations were fabricated after Kavitha's death is an
attempt to divert attention from the true perpetrator. The prosecution contends that the financial
burden put on Kavitha's family by the remaining Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the existence of dowry
demands, is substantiated and credible. Kavitha's emotional abuse was validly justified by the fact
that her family was under pressure from Aravind and his family and did not provide the full dowry.
The defence’s assertions of fabricated allegations should be disregarded in favour of the more
robust circumstantial evidence that supports the existence of dowry harassment. This is in
accordance with case law, such as Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana (2006), in which the court
determined that dowry harassment was a valid claim, despite the accused's dispute.

11
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)4 SCC 511
12
State of Maharashtra v. Narsingh (2008) 16 SCC 135
13
Section 498A - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

19
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

15) In order to establish the harassment and its connection to the suicide, the victim's distress and
persistent dowry demands were deemed sufficient. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Kesar Devi (2017) determined that allegations of dowry harassment should not be
dismissed lightly, particularly when they are substantiated by evidence such as financial pressure,
social expectations, and the victim's subsequent behaviour. The circumstantial evidence supporting
the accused's denial of harassment was deemed insufficient. Therefore, by arguments raised and
authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the prosecution argues that
testimonies and circumstantial evidence, such as Kavitha's partial dowry payment and emotional
distress, supported the dowry harassment allegations. Aravind denies harassment, but dowry
demands, family pressures, and societal pressures caused Kavitha's death. The prosecution claims
these elements justify Aravind's Section 108 suicide abetment conviction.

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED KAVITHA’S MENTAL
HEALTH AS A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO HER SUICIDE?

16) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that In response to Aravind's appeal that
Kavitha's mental health, rather than his actions, was the primary cause of her suicide, the
prosecution argues that the trial court properly considered Kavitha's mental health but found that the
allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty caused her emotional distress. While Kavitha's mental
health may have contributed, the prosecution believes Aravind's behaviour was a major factor in her
tragic death. The prosecution's main points and case law are below.

3.1 THE ROLE OF DOWRY HARASSMENT AND CRUELTY IN KAVITHA’S MENTAL

HEALTH

17) The prosecution asserts that the alleged dowry harassment and cruelty inflicted by Kavitha's
husband, Aravind, exacerbated her mental distress, which was a significant contributing factor to
her suicide. Kavitha's suicide was not solely caused by her mental health; rather, it was a complex
interplay of the abuse she endured and her emotional struggles. In the case of State of Maharashtra
v. Narsingh (2008), the Supreme Court underscored the importance of the court considering the
broader context of the victim's life, which includes emotional and psychological pressures, when
taking into account suicide.

20
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

18) The prosecution argues that Kavitha's emotional breakdown was directly influenced by
Aravind's alleged dowry demands and verbal abuse, which made her more susceptible to her pre-
existing mental health issues and ultimately resulted in her suicide. Also, the court in State of
Chhattisgarh v. Ramesh Kumar (2010)14 determined that emotional distress caused by cruelty,
whether physical or mental, is a substantial factor in suicide cases. The prosecution contends that
the harassment Kavitha endured, which included the pressure to comply with dowry demands, is a
form of cruelty that exacerbated her mental health issues, thereby increasing her vulnerability to
suicide.

3.2 MENTAL HEALTH AND ABUSE: EXPLORING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

19) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the Kavitha's mental health may have
performed her more susceptible to emotional stress, but the prosecution emphasizes that the abuse
she endured was the root cause of the intolerable situation. The likelihood of suicide increases when
victims of abuse experience mental health issues, as demonstrated by case law on domestic abuse
and suicide. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961),15 the court emphasized the
psychological consequences of long-term emotional distress and the failure of a spouse to address
those emotional needs, which is particularly relevant in suicide cases. The prosecution contends that
Kavitha's vulnerability was exacerbated by Aravind's alleged abuse and his failure to provide
emotional support. Also, the court in Soniya v. State of Haryana (2006) determined that an
individual in an abusive relationship, particularly one who is diagnosed with mental health issues, is
more likely to engage in extreme actions, including suicide. Kavitha's emotional turmoil and
depressive episodes, which were exacerbated by Aravind's actions, had a substantial impact on her
mental state prior to her death.

3.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE LINKING ABUSE TO SUICIDE

20) The prosecution argues that the overwhelming evidence presented during the trial, including
testimonies from Kavitha's family, made it clear that Aravind's actions were a significant cause of
her emotional distress, despite the fact that Kavitha's mental health was taken into account. The trial
court did not dismiss her mental health, but instead analysed the complete context of the alleged
abuse and harassment she faced.

14
State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramesh Kumar (2010) 12 SCC 164
15
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 2 SCR 567

21
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.
16
21) The court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) confirmed that when there is clear
evidence of emotional and mental abuse that significantly contributed to the victim's distress, such
actions must be regarded as substantial factors in the death. The prosecution contends that the trial
court was correct in its emphasis on the evidence of dowry harassment and cruelty, as it was
directly associated with Kavitha's declining mental health. Ultimately, the prosecution underscores
that the abuse Kavitha allegedly endured at the hands of her husband was the primary cause of her
distress and eventual suicide, despite the fact that mental health issues were a part of the narrative.

3.4 EVALUATING THE DEFENSE’S CLAIM OF MENTAL HEALTH AS THE SOLE

CAUSE

22) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution maintains that Aravind's
defence, which was that Kavitha's suicide was solely the result of her mental health issues and not
any abuse, was insufficient and did not surpass the evidence presented by Kavitha's family and the
societal context. The trial court determined that the evidence of dowry harassment and the social
pressures imposed on Kavitha were more likely to have contributed to her death. The court in
Laxmi Devi v. State of Punjab (1999)17 underscored the necessity of evaluating the emotional
distress and the context of the abuse when evaluating the cause of suicide. The prosecution contends
that the trial court's determination that abuse was a significant factor in Kavitha's death is consistent
with this legal principle. In State v. Rajesh Sharma (2012)18, the court upheld a conviction for
abetment to suicide, recognizing that the defence of mental health issues alone could not obscure
evidence of abuse. The prosecution argues that the trial court's emphasis on the abuse, rather than
solely on Kavitha's mental health, was in accordance with this ruling.

23) Therefore, by arguments raised and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully
submitted before this Hon’ble court that the prosecution claims that the trial court correctly
considered Kavitha's mental health as a factor in her suicide, it did not overlook the alleged dowry
harassment and cruelty. Legal precedents emphasize the psychological toll of abusive relationships,
especially when compounded by mental health issues. The trial court accepted this. Evidence shows
that Aravind's actions caused Kavitha's emotional distress and suicide. The prosecution wants the
trial court's verdict upheld.

16
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 1 SCC 589
17
Laxmi Devi v. State of Punjab (1999) 5 SCC 256
18
State v. Rajesh Sharma (2012) 8 SCC 537

22
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

ISSUE 4
WHETHER THE LAW CONCERNING DOWRY HARASSMENT AND
ABETMENT NEEDS FURTHER CLARIFICATION TO PREVENT MISUSE?

24) It is humble submitted that the prosecution argues that while dowry harassment and abetment to
suicide laws should not be misused, the focus should remain on protecting genuine victims of
domestic violence and dowry abuse. The prosecution claims that the laws are sufficient, but they
should be applied carefully, especially when proving such allegations. Aravind and Kavitha's case
shows sufficient evidence of dowry harassment and abuse, according to the prosecution. Thus, no
legal clarification or changes are needed.

4.1 EXISTING LAW ON DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ABETMENT TO SUICIDE

25) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that The Dowry Prohibition Act19 and Section
108 of the Aryavartian Penal Code are suitable for the prevention of dowry harassment and suicide
abetment. The law is intended to safeguard vulnerable individuals, particularly women, from the
detrimental consequences of dowry practices, despite the possibility of isolated instances of misuse.
It guarantees that the victim's allegations are thoroughly investigated and that individuals are not
penalized for lack of sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court underscored in K.N. Bhatia v. State of
Maharashtra (2008)20 that laws addressing dowry harassment must strike a balance between
protecting victims from violence and coercion and safeguarding the rights of the accused. The
prosecution contends that the law already incorporates measures to prevent misuse, such as the
necessity of a comprehensive investigation and evidence verification. In State of Rajasthan v.
Kalyan Singh (2014), 21the court upheld the application of dowry harassment laws, reiterating the
necessity for the prosecution to provide substantial evidence that connects the harassment to the
victim's decision to take her own life. The prosecution argues that the current laws, which
encompass both verbal and physical abuse in dowry harassment cases, have been applied correctly
in this instance.

19
The Dowry Prohibition 1961 defines dowry as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in
connection with a marriage.
20
K.N. Bhatia v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 8 SCC 144
21
State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Singh (2014) 4 SCC 715

23
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

4.2 THE EVIDENCE OF DOWRY HARASSMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON KAVITHA'S

MENTAL HEALTH

26) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution maintains that the
evidence presented by Kavitha's family strongly supports the claim that she was a victim of dowry
harassment. The mental health of Kavitha deteriorated as a result of the stress caused by Aravind's
alleged demands for dowry, as well as emotional and physical abuse. Ultimately, this contributed to
her tragic suicide. The prosecution argues that the law is sufficient to address situations in which
harassment results in mental distress and does not necessitate additional clarification in this regard.
The court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Munna Lal (2001)22 confirmed that cruelty that can result in
severe mental distress is defined as credible evidence of verbal abuse, physical assault, and dowry
demands. The prosecution contends that the trial court correctly determined that Kavitha's
emotional distress, which was further exacerbated by Aravind's alleged behaviour, substantiated the
charge of abetment to suicide. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), the court determined
that the combination of emotional distress and dowry harassment can be used as the basis for a
conviction under Section 108 for abetment to suicide. The prosecution argues that the same legal
principles are applicable in this case, as the stress caused by Aravind's actions, rather than Kavitha's
mental health, was a significant factor in her death.

4.3 SAFEGUARDS AGAINST MISUSE OF THE LAW SHOULD BE PRESERVED

27) The prosecution argues that the current legal system has adequate safeguards to prevent the
misuse of dowry harassment and abetment laws, despite acknowledging that some cases of dowry
harassment may be falsely framed. According to the prosecution, the primary objective should be to
safeguard genuine victims of dowry-related abuse. The prosecution contends that it is unnecessary
to implement changes to the law, as the judicial system already demands clear and convincing
evidence prior to any conviction. In the case of State of Haryana v. Sandeep (2004)23, the court
underscored that the law must safeguard the accused from false accusations, but it should not
obstruct victims of dowry harassment from obtaining justice. The prosecution argues that the trial
court adhered to due process by evaluating the evidence presented by Kavitha's family and the
context of her death, which substantiated the allegations of harassment.

22
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Munna Lal (2001) 7 SCC 77
23
State of Haryana v. Sandeep (2004) 12 SCC 579

24
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.
24
28) Also, the court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) emphasized the necessity of
conducting a comprehensive investigation into allegations of dowry harassment, particularly when
the allegations involve suicide. The prosecution contends that Aravind's appeal fails to demonstrate
that the trial court disregarded critical aspects of the case, and the evidence implicated his abusive
behaviour as a direct cause of Kavitha's suicide.

4.4 THE LAW SHOULD CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON PROTECTING VULNERABLE

VICTIMS

29) It is humbly Contended before the Hon’ble Court that the prosecution contends that the primary
objective of the law should be to safeguard vulnerable victims, particularly women, from dowry
harassment and the emotional and physical trauma it inflicts. The law is already sufficiently explicit
in its treatment of the grave issue of dowry harassment and its potential to result in severe emotional
distress, which can lead to tragic consequences such as suicide. The prosecution argues that the
primary concern in this case is not the ambiguity of the law, but rather the appropriate application of
the law to the evidence presented. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2013)25 determined that laws on dowry harassment are intended to safeguard the mental well-being
and dignity of women, and any efforts to weaken these protections would undermine the legal
protections for victims. The prosecution underscores the importance of the current provisions for
dowry harassment and abetment to suicide in order to mitigate the severity of the situation and
prevent victims such as Kavitha from being further victimized by societal pressures. The court in
Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (200526) also upheld the application of dowry harassment laws,
emphasizing that the law must provide women with the opportunity to seek justice without
encountering unnecessary legal obstacles. The prosecution argues that the current framework is
effective in addressing the issue at hand and that the law should continue to provide this protection
without excessive changes or clarifications.
30) Therefore, by arguments raised and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully
submitted before this Hon’ble court that the prosecution argues that Aryavarta's dowry harassment
and suicide abetment laws cover this case. While misuse concerns exist, the law already ensures
that allegations are thoroughly investigated and only valid claims are considered in court. The
prosecution claims that explaining the law is unnecessary and that the focus should be on applying
it properly to protect genuine victims and prevent legal system abuses.
24
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 12 SCC 259
25
Sushil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 2 SCC 636
26
Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 369

25
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT
 INTRA -MOOT COURT COMPETITION– 2024.

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:

1. The prosecution has been unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aravind's actions
directly caused Kavitha's suicide, as there is no concrete evidence linking him to the act of
abetment.

2. The allegations of dowry harassment are unfounded and were fabricated by Kavitha's family
after her death. There is no corroborating evidence to justify the claims.

3. The trial court made an error by failing to adequately evaluate Kavitha's mental health
condition, which played a substantial role in her tragic decision to end her life.

4. It is imperative that laws be made more explicit in order to prevent the misuse of dowry
harassment and abetment provisions, which are frequently employed as weapons in personal
disputes, resulting in unjust convictions.

AND / OR

To pass any suitable orders that it deems fit in the interest of law, equity, and a good
conscience and thus render justice. And for this, the respondent as in the duty bound shall
humbly pray.

For This Act of Kindness, The Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

26
MEMORAL DRAFTING FOR THE RESPONTANT