Moot Memorial argument from Petitioner side Charges based on Sections 304B and 498B of the Indian Penal Code and 113-B of Indian Evidence Act.

1. a
Team Code:- 19BAL5104
IN THE HON’BLE COURT CHANDIGARH
IN THE MATTER OF
SHARDA… …PETITIONER
VERSUS
DINESH & Others …RESPONDENTS
MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERSHIP(LLI-559)
10th Semester
B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.)
CHANDIGARHUNIVERSITY, GHARUAN, MOHALI
(PUNJAB)
2024
MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2. b
Table of Contents
Serial No. Content Page No.
1 List of Abbreviations 1
2 List of Authorities 2
3 Statement of Jurisdiction 3
4 Statement of Facts 4
5 Statement of Charges 5
6 Summary of Arguments 6
7 Argument Advance 7-12
8 Prayer 13

3. 1
List of Abbrevations
IPC : Indian Penal Code
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
HCP : High Court of Purva Pradesh
CrPC : Code of Criminal
ART : Article
FIR : First Information Report
DNA : Deoxyribonucleic Acid
P.O. : Prison Officer
HRO : Human Rights Organization
GOI : Government of Indica
C.A. : Criminal Appeal
W.P. : Writ Petition
CoC : Constitution of Indica
DR : Death Row
R. : Respondent
Para : Paragraph
Cr. : Criminal
DNA : Deoxyribonucleic Acid
CrPC : Code of Criminal Procedure

4. 2
List of Authorities
A. Books
1. S.C. Sarkar, Criminal Procedure in India (Eastern Law House, 2020)
2. A.P. Singh, Human Rights Law in India (Oxford University Press, (2020)
3. Journal of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence, Volume 15,Issue 2 (2020)
B. Case Laws
1. Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 2 SCC 240
2. Birender Poddar v. State of Bihar 2011 LawSuit(SC) 599
3. Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana 2023 Latest Caselaw 7446 P&H
4. Mungeshwar Pd. Chaurasia v. State of Bihar 2002 AIR SC 2531
5. Bhakkar Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2000 CriLJ 1174
C. Statutes
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
2. Criminal Procedural Code, 1973

5. 3
Statement of Jurisdiction
This Hon'ble Court exercises jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Section 177 of the
CrPC.
1. Jurisdiction under Section 177 CrPC: Section 177 of the CrPC mandates that
offenses shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
they were committed. Given that the crimes alleged against the respondents took
place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it possesses the requisite
authority to adjudicate upon the matter.
In light of the foregoing, this Hon'ble Court has the necessary jurisdiction to inquire into and
try the offenses alleged against the respondents.

6. 4
Statement of Facts
1. That Sharda, daughter of Vikram, was united in matrimony with Suresh, son of Dinesh,
on 17th July 2022, following a courtship that flourished during their shared academic
pursuits.
2. That the families of both parties, well-acquainted with each other prior to the marriage,
shared a cordial relationship, indicative of mutual respect and understanding.
3. That while certain customary expenses were incurred for the wedding, including the
payment of an agreed dowry, any additional demands made by Dinesh were unfounded
and exaggerated, merely speculative allegations lacking substantive evidence.
4. That contrary to the petitioner's claims, Sharda received affection and care from her in-
laws, who regarded her as a cherished member of the family, and any occasional
disagreements were resolved amicably within the familial framework.
5. That Sharda's temporary stay at her parental home was a voluntary decision, undertaken
for personal reasons unrelated to any alleged mistreatment or coercion from her in-laws.
6. That Suresh's visit to Sharda's parental home on 20th May 2023 was motivated by a
desire to reconcile and mend familial bonds, reflecting his commitment to their marital
relationship.
7. That the purchase of Organophosphorus by Dinesh was solely for the legitimate
purpose of pest control, devoid of any nefarious intent or connection to Sharda's
unfortunate demise.
8. That the allegations of forcible administration of poison by Shalini and Suresh are
baseless and unsubstantiated, as Sharda's tragic death was unforeseen and accidental,
with no malice or criminal intent involved.
9. That the testimony of the neighboring family, corroborating the defendants' assertions
of Sharda's well-being and familial harmony, serves as compelling evidence refuting
the petitioner's narrative of mistreatment and criminal conspiracy.
10. That the defendants vehemently deny any involvement in Sharda's demise and maintain
their innocence against the petitioner's allegations, asserting their unequivocal
commitment to truth and justice.
11. These facts represent the defendant's perspective on the events leading up to Sharda's
death and refute the petitioner's allegations of mistreatment and criminal conduct.

7. 5
Statement of Issues
Charge 1: Whether all the accused persons are liable for dowry death of deceased u/s 304B
and 498A of I.P.C.?
Charge 2: Whether there is valid proof to establish sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act?

8. 6
Summary of Arguments
Charge 1: Whether all the accused persons are liable for dowry death of deceased u/s 304B
and 498A of I.P.C.?
There is no evidence that there was dowry demand from the deceased. The deceased Mrs.
Sharda Goyal was not subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before death. The Hon’ble
Court must acquit the respondents from charges u/s 304B as the essential ingredients to raise a
presumption of dowry death u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act were not fulfilled. The
respondents did not had mens rea to commit the murder of deceased neither any actus reus was
done by them towards commission of alleged offences. The dying declaration of deceased is
inadmissible in court of law as it is uncertain, unclear, leads to more than one inferences, the
deceased was not in fit medical condition to make such declaration. Thus it cannot be the
ground for conviction of Mr. Dinesh Goyal u/s 304 of I.P.C., The Hon’ble Court must acquit
him from charges u/s 304 for the dowry death of deceased. In this case chain of circumstantial
evidences is not so complete as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It is humbly
submitted that when two views are possible on the same set of evidences, the view favouring
the innocence of the accused must be adopted.
Charge 2: Whether there is valid proof to establish sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act?
The prosecution has failed to establish the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act in the present case. There is insufficient evidence linking the alleged dowry
demands and mistreatment to the deceased's death. The cause of death, organophosphorus
poisoning, lacks a direct connection to dowry harassment. The accused deny the allegations
and assert that the deceased was treated as a daughter of the family. Testimony from
neighboring families supports this claim. Therefore, the prosecution has not proven beyond
reasonable doubt that Sharda's death was a dowry death resulting from cruelty or harassment
by the respondents.

9. 7
Argument Advance
Issue 1: Whether all the accused persons are liable for dowry death of deceased u/s 304B
and 498A of I.P.C.?
1.1 The essential ingredients of sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C. are not fulfilled to hold
Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal guilty for offences under these
sections.
 304B. Dowry Death- where the death of any 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 marriage 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.
 498A.-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- whosoever
being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for the term which may extended to three yrs.
and shall also be liable to fine.
It is humbly submitted that as held in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1
the
presumption of Dowry Death shall be raised only on the proof of following essentials:-
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the Dowry death of
a women.
(2) The women was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
1.2 There was no Dowry demand by the accused
According to Sec.-2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 “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 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 Maher in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
1
Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003) 2 SCC 240

10. 8
 It is humbly submitted that both the families i.e. Goyal Family and Gupta Family are very
rich, are High Profile personalities and they knew each other.
 Mr. Suresh and Mrs. Sharda studied M.B.A. in the same college where they fell in love
with each other. Mr. Suresh himself suggested the name of Mrs. Sharda for marriage, to
which Mr. Dinesh Goyal readily accepted. It was a love marriage.
 There is no evidence or witness to prove the allegation of prosecution that Mr. Dinesh
Goyal demanded dowry of substantial value from Mr. Vikram, neither there is any evidence
to show that dowry was paid.
 Also a question arises from the above fact that why would a person (Mr. Dinesh Goyal)
who can spend crores on a wedding, who is an industrialist, a high profile person would
demand a dowry.
 It is humbly submitted that since Gupta family is very high profile family, the alleged costly
assets and items were just the gifts and presents made at the time of marriage.
1.3 According to Explanation – I of Sec. 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – “for the removal
of doubts it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of marriage to either party to
the marriage in forms of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be
dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the
marriage of said parties.”
It is humbly submitted that there is no evidence or witness to prove that Mrs. Shalini Goyal
made dowry demands for Mercedes Benj Classic car and for a F.D. of Rs. 5 Crore. Also the
F.D. of Rs. 50 lakhs which is alleged to be given as dowry was in the name of Mrs. Sharda
Goyal and in no manner any of the member of Goyal family was beneficiary to it. Thus it
cannot be regarded as Dowry within the meaning if it as in Sec. – 2 of Dowry prohibition Act,
1961.
1.4 The deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal was not subjected to cruelty and harassment by her
husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law for demand of dowry neither after marriage nor soon
before her death.
According to explanation for the purpose of Sec. 498-A, “cruelty” means-
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 any failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
The contentions which prove that there was no cruelty and harassment with deceased are as
follows-:
That it is clearly evident there was no direct evidence of dowry demand, cruelty and
harassment. As held in case of Dhanpal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, “the Trial Court
is in better position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. If the two reasonable or possible

11. 9
views can be reached – one that leads to the acquittal, the other to conviction appellate court
must rule in favour of accused.”
Any of the Prime Witness examined by prosecution did not stated that saw deceased being
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. However they stated that she had
bruises and contusions on her body which was further corroborated by medical evidences. The
alleged bruises and contusions, to be evidence of cruelty by respondents were in reality due to
the convulsions caused to deceased due to consumption of poisonous drug.
1.5 Mr. Dinesh, Mr. Suresh and Mrs. Shalini have not committed the Dowry death of deceased
Sharda Goyal.
It is humbly submitted that on 25. 05. 2015, according to prosecution the accused forcibly
administered the poison named “NUVAN” to the deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal. The deceased
died due to organophosphorus poisoning.
In the case of Birendar Poddar v State of Bihar2
, it was held that-“It is obviously true that
this case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. It is true that in cases where death takes place
within the matrimonial home, it is very difficult to find direct evidence. But for appreciating
circumstantial evidence, the court has to be cautious and find out whether the chain of
circumstances led by the prosecution is complete and the chain must be as complete and
conclusive as to unmistakably point the guilt of accused. It is well settled that if hypothesis or
possibility arises from the evidence which is incompatible with the guilt of accused, in such
case conviction of the accused which is based solely on circumstantial evidence is difficult to
be sustained.”
113B-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Presumption as to dowry death-When the question is whether
a person has committed the dowry death of 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.
“There must be material to show that soon before the death of woman, such woman was
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry then only a
presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman” as held
in the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka.
The other facts which introduces the ground of reasonable doubt in this case are as follows-
Disappearance of poison-It is humbly submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove that
the poison was in possession of the accused. The poison which was alleged to be administered
to the deceased was not found in the possession of the accused. There was no eye witness who
had seen that the accused had administered poison to the deceased forcefully. Thus, the non-
availability of poison in the possession of the accused creates a loophole and thus, the accused
cannot be held guilty.
2
Birender Poddar v. State of Bihar 2011 LawSuit(SC) 599

12. 10
No fingerprints found-As the clothes and bottle of poison was not recovered thus, no
fingerprints of the accused were found on them. Thus, they cannot be held guilty.
In the case of Jaspal v. State it was held that-The finger print examination is conclusive as it is
an exact science.
In the case of Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan it was held that-Where the court had to check
the reliability of fingerprint evidence and it was found that fingerprints were not taken and the
seized articles were not produced nor exhibited, a conviction on the basis of such evidence was
held not to be proper.
It was held that in the case Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana3
, Ratio Decidendi: Where a case
rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all
the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of
the Accused or the guilt of any other person. If the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of
two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava it was pointed out that great care must
be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably
capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.
In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. &Ors held that-When the case rest upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following test:
1. The circumstances from which inference of the guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently
and firmly established:But in this case circumstances are not firmly established as it was not
clear that whether the deceased was administered poison forcefully or she herself consumed
the poison to commit suicide or it was the case of accidental consumption of poison.
2. Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of
the accused: In this case the mere purchase of organo-phosphorous by Dinesh Goyal does not
prove that he had purchased it in order to kill the deceased.
3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form the chain of so complete that it must
prove in all probability that crime was committed and none else: But in this case, the
circumstantial evidences against the accused in no manner prove them guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
3
Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana 2023 Latest Caselaw 7446 P&H

13. 11
Issue 2: Whether there is valid proof to establish sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act?
2.1 There is no valid proof to establish Sec. 113-B of Indian Evidence Act
Section 113-B pertains to the presumption of dowry death, where the woman has died within
seven years of 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.
 Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The prosecution's case relies primarily on
circumstantial evidence and allegations made by the deceased's family. However, there
is a lack of direct evidence linking the alleged dowry demands and mistreatment to the
deceased's death. The mere fact of receiving dowry or facing marital discord does not
automatically establish the offense under Section 113-B.
 Absence of Dowry Death: The prosecution has not conclusively established that
Sharda's death was a result of dowry harassment or demands. While it is alleged that
she faced mistreatment, there is no direct evidence connecting this mistreatment to her
demise. Additionally, the cause of death, organophosphorus poisoning, could have
alternative explanations that are not related to dowry demands.
 Counterarguments against Allegations: The accused vehemently deny the allegations
of mistreatment and dowry demands. They contend that Sharda was treated as a
daughter of the family and there was no intention to harm her. Furthermore, testimony
from neighboring families supports the claim that Sharda was not mistreated, casting
doubt on the prosecution's assertions.
In light of the above arguments, we submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the
presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence presented is
insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sharda's death was a dowry death resulting
from cruelty or harassment by the respondents. Therefore, we urge the court to consider these
factors and render a just decision in accordance with the law.
In case of Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra it was held that all the ingredients of this
section must exists conjunctively. There must be nexus between cruelty and harassment to raise
the presumption of dowry death u/s 113B of Indian evidence Act.
2.2 It is humbly submitted that from the above facts, arguments, evidences and precedents it is
clearly evident that there was no dowry demand from the deceased, neither she was subjected
to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. There is no nexus between cruelty and
harassment.
The Supreme Court explained the term “soon before death” in Hans Raj v. State of Punjab that
there should have been continuous cruelty connected with demand of dowry and the same
should be shown to be right up to the point of death. In present case deceased was neither
subjected to cruelty after marriage nor soon before death.

14. 12
In the case of Mungeshwar Pd. Chaurasia v. State of Bihar4
None of the prosecution witness
stated that in-laws had done anything against the deceased wife soon before death. Their
conviction u/s 304B and 498A was held to be not sustainable. They were also acquitted under
section 201 because the offence under the section cannot be separated from the main offence.
As in case of Bhakkar Ram v. State of Rajasthan5
when it was not proved that accused used
to maltreat and harass the deceased for dowry soon before her death the offence of S. 304B
with the presumption of S. 113B of evidence act cannot be established. Also in case of Rajnesh
Tandon v. State of Punjab when evidence did not prove that wife was subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with demand for dowry, then there is no scope for presumption of
Dowry death u/s 113B of Indian Evidence Act.
The death of deceased was either suicidal or homicidal. However, it can be inferred that the
death of deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal was unnatural, the respondents in no manner can be
presumed to have been committed the dowry death of deceased u/s 304B I.P.C. as the other
essential ingredients of this section does not exist conjunctively.
Thus, it is humbly submitted that the essential ingredients of sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w sec.-34 of
I.P.C. are not fulfilled to hold Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal
guilty for offences under these sections.
4
Mungeshwar Pd. Chaurasia v. State of Bihar 2002 AIR SC 2531
5
Bhakkar Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2000 CriLJ 1174

15. 13
PRAYER
"May it please the Honorable Court,
In response to the petitioner's submissions and the evidence presented, the respondents humbly
pray for the following reliefs:
1. The accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are not liable
for offences punishable u/s 302, 304B, 498A, 201 r/w Sec.-34 of I.P.C.
2. Dismissal of the petitioner's allegations on grounds of lack of substantial evidence and
merit.
3. Affirmation of the respondents' presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. Grant of any other relief or remedy deemed appropriate and just in the circumstances
of the case.
According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Hon’ble Court to adjudge
the above prayers, and grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
grant and is deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS