RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

GROUP NO. 32 ROLL NO. 537

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT,2014

IN THE HONBLE SESSION COURT CRIMINAL CASE. NO. /2014 [UNDER SEC. 302, SEC. 498A IN ALTERNATIVE SEC. 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860]

ADITI YADAV
V.

PROSECUTION

SANJAY YADAV

DEFENCE

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... v STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... vi ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................ viii STATEMENT OF CHARGES ................................................................................................... ix SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. x 1. THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. .................................................................................................... 1 1.1. 1.2. 2. THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 498A. ...................... 1 ACCUSED SUBJECTED HIS WIFE RESHMA WITH CRUELTY. ....................................... 2

THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. .................................................................................................... 4 2.1. THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1860. .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. 2.3. RESHMA HAS COMMITTED SUICIDE. .............................................................................. 4 SECTION 113-A OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1862 IS ATTRACTED IN THE

INSTANT CASE............................................................................................................................. 5 PRAYER ...................................................................................................................................... xii

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 17. 18. 19.

AIR Anr. AP Cal. CWN Del Govt. HC ILR Ker. Mad. Mah LJ MP LJ Ors. P&H para. Sec. S.C. Vol.

All India Reporter Another Andhra Pradesh Calcutta Calcutta Weekly Note Delhi Government High Court Indian Law Reporter Kerala Madras Maharashtra Law Journal Madhya Pradesh Law Journal Others Punjab and Haryana Paragraph Section Supreme Court Cases Volume

ii

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Collins v. Collins, (1953) 2 All ER 966. ........................................................................................ 1 Jagdeesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988 Cr.L.J. 1048. .............................................................. 5 Jatin Sharma v. Sonali Chauhan, AIR 1996 SC 230....................................................................... 4 Kisan @ Pilaji Gangaram Khatale and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr.L.J. 130. ........ 4 Kusum Lata v. Kampa, AIR 1965 All. 280..................................................................................... 2 Mary v. Raghwan, AIR 1979 MP 40. ............................................................................................. 3 Neni v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cr.L.J. 4527. ............................................................................... 6 Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582................................................................. 2 Ramesh Baburao Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cr.L.J. 3364........................................ 6 Rup Lal v. Kartaro, 1970 J&K 158. ............................................................................................... 1 Saptani v. Jagdish, AIR 1987 Del. 63. ........................................................................................... 3 Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121. .................................................................... 1 Smt . Arpita Chakraborty v. Dr . AmitChakraborty, 2008(3) CHN423. ........................................ 3 Soosannamma v. Vergeese, AIR 1957 SC 27. ................................................................................ 2 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Yadla Ramga Rao & ors.,AIR 2003 SC 11. ....................................... 5 BOOKS REFERRED 1. Hari Singh Gours, Commentaries on Hurt & Homicide (2nd Edition, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd.). 2. John A. Andrews & Michael Hirst, Criminal Evidence (2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 1992, London). 3. KD Gaur, Criminal Law and Criminology (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2002, New Delhi). 4. P.C.Banerjee, Criminal Trial & Investigation (4th Edition, Orient Publishing Company, 2007, New Delhi).

iii

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

5. R.Gopal, Shonis Code of Criminal Procedure (20th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2005, New Delhi). 6. R.K. Nelson, Indian Penal Code (9th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2003, New Delhi). 7. R.P.Kathuria, Law of Crimes and Criminology (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications, 2007, Delhi). 8. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes (26th Edition, Bharat Law House, 2007, New Delhi). 9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal CODE (31st Edition, Wadhwa & Company, 2006, Nagpur). 10. Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Amir Ali, Law of Evidence (17th Edition, Butterworths, 2001, New Delhi). 11. SP Tyagi, Law of Evidence (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications, 2008, Delhi). 12. Woodroofe, Commentaries on Code of Criminal Procedure (2nd Edition, Law Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2005, Allahabad). 13. Vinod Nijhawan, Better Criminal Reference (2nd Edition, Vinod Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2008, New Delhi). DICTIONARY REFERRED 1. Aiyar, K.J., Judicial Dictionary, (New Delhi: Butterworths India, 13th edition, 2001). 2. Black, Henry Campbell, Blacks Law Dictionary, (St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing Company, 6th edition, 1990). STATUES REFERRED 1. Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Evidence Act, 1872. 3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

iv

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION THE PROSECUTION HAS APPROACHED THE HONBLE SESSION COURT UNDER SECTION 177 AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE HONBLE COURT UNDER SECTION 209 READ WITH SCHEDULE I OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS -IThe Background of the case: Reshma, a renowned socialite in Delhi was married to Sanjay Yadav, a businessman in Delhi. They got married on 20th October 2010 in luxury hotel in Udaipur. It was the first marriage of Sanjay but second marriage of Reshma. She had a daughter named Aditi aged 19 years from her first husband. Her first husband Rahul had died in an accident. Aditi was studying in 2nd year MBBS in a reputed college in Mumbai. All the expenses for the study of Reshma were given by Sanjay. The married life of Reshma and Sanjay was going very smoothly after one year of their marriage. Reshma once suspected her husband of having an extra marital affair with an air hostess named Riya Raman aged 25 years. She was introduced to Reshma by Sanjay as a friend whom he met at a party in November 2012. There were frequent quarrels between Reshma and Sanjay because of Riyas closeness with Sanjay. He was fed up with the behavior of Reshma for constantly keeping an eye over all his activities whether related to his work or personal things and not giving him proper space in married life. -IICruelty and its effect : Once during a party at friends place in July 2013 Reshma caught Sanjay and Riya getting intimate. She was furious all the time about her husbands intimacy with the airhostess. This affected her both mentally and emotionally. She consulted a psychiatrist who gave her medicines for depression and advised her complete bed rest. On 4th January 2014, Reshma found some incriminating pictures of Riya and some other person on Sanjays phone. -IIIUnfortunate incident : Then on 9th January 2014, both Sanjay and Reshma went to Mumbai for a board meeting of the company. Sanjay was busy whole day in the meetings and Reshma was at the hotel whole day taking rest. They both had to attend a family function at night in Taj Palace Hotel on the same day. In the evening when Sanjay returned from the meeting he found Reshma sleeping on the bed. He tried to wake her up but she did not get up. He got panicked when she did not respond to his calls and called the hotel doctor to examine her. On medical examination, Reshma was found dead. Immediately the news leaked in the media that Reshma wife of a
vi

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

renowned business man Sanjay died under mysterious circumstances. To save him from humiliation in media and press, Sanjay gave a media statement that his wife was under depression and this may have resulted in her death. -IVThe case: Next day post mortem was done and it was found out that there were some injury marks on the back of Reshma and she had died due to drug overdose. No suicide note has been recovered from the room where she died. Aditi has filed a case against Sanjay that he has killed her mother.

vii

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

ISSUES RAISED

1.

WHETHER ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

2.

WHETHER ACCUSED IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

viii

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

Charge: Mr. Sanjay is charged under section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the offence of abetment to commit suicide and his wife to cruelty.

ix

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.

THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is humbly submitted that the accused has subjected Ms. Reshma to mental cruelty by being in illicit relationship over a long period of time with Ms. Riya and other persons the incriminating pictures of which is found in accused phone. And further the accused has subjected Ms. Reshma to physical cruelty and did not stop doing prohibited act even after being threatened by Ms. Reshma that she will commit suicide if he does not stop his extra marital affairs.

2.

THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

Alternatively where accused is not convicted under section 302 of IPC it is humbly submitted and proved that Ms. Reshma has committed suicide and since suicide has been committed within seven years of marriage section 113-A is attracted. And where it has already been proved that accused has subjected Ms. Reshma to cruelty, it is proved that accused has abetted her to commit suicide.

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.

THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the accused in the case namely- Sanjay Yadav has committed an offence of cruelty covered under Sec. 498-A1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for which punishment is prescribed under same section. 1.1. THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 498A. It is humbly submitted that the essential ingredients for conviction under section 498-A are following: 1. Woman subjected to cruelty. 2. Cruelty subjected by Husband or relative of husband. Further clause (a) of the Explanation under section 498A, IPC defines cruelty to mean a 'wilful conduct of the husband of such nature as is likely to drive the women to commit suicide.2 It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that to constitute cruelty the conduct should be such which is inexcusable, unpardonable, unforgivable, or grossly excessive. The shortest expression is grave and weighty.3 It is further submitted in the light of the case Rup Lal v. Kartaro4 that the act and conduct complained of should be considered in reference to the whole matrimonial relationship.

1 2 3 4

The Indian Penal Code, 498A (1860). Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121. Collins v. Collins, (1953) 2 All ER 966.

Rup Lal v. Kartaro, 1970 J&K 158.

1

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

1.2. ACCUSED SUBJECTED HIS WIFE RESHMA WITH CRUELTY. It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that cruelty is a conduct of such a character as to have cause danger to life or health bodily or mental, gives rise to reasonable apprehension of such danger. Further it is humbly submitted that in the case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta5, Supreme Court observed that mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling, therefore, a matter of inference and inference has to be drawn on facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. It is pertinent to mention that there had been quarrel between the couple because of Riyas closeness with Sanjay6. It is further pertinent to mention here that accused had been once caught by his wife in July 2013 getting intimate with Riya and secondly, wife of the accused had also found some incriminating picture of Riya and some other persons on her husbands phone.7 It is humbly submitted that indulging in getting intimate with another woman while being married or having extra marital affairs has been considered inexcusable and grossly excessive in the case of Kusum Lata v. Kampa8. Further it is pertinent to mention that the threatening given by the wife of the accused that she will commit suicide if he does not stop doing all these things9 clearly suggests that conduct of the accused had been continuously putting his wife in depression and causing mental injury. Further in the case of Soosannamma v. Vergeese10, it was held by the apex court that a conduct which would make married life together impossible to be endured and would make life very

5 6 7 8 9

Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582.

Moot proposition 1 at line 10. Moot proposition 3 at line 1.

Kusum Lata v. Kampa, AIR 1965 All. 280.

Moot proposition 3 at line 3.

10

Soosannamma v. Vergeese, AIR 1957 SC 27.

2

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

unhappy and miserable will amount to cruelty. It is submitted that illicit relation with other person by one spouse comes within the ambit of cruelty defined under section 498A.11 Further it is humbly submitted that the medical examination report of deceased body clearly shows the presence of injury marks on the back of the deceased 12. At this point it is pertinent to mention that since no one else was in contact with the deceased except to that of accused, those injuries can only be presumed to be inflicted by accused and thereby subjecting physical cruelty to deceased. Reliance can be placed upon Mary v. Raghwan13, Saptani v. Jagdish14 wherein it was held that single act of violence can amount to cruelty and presence of injury marks on victims are positive proof of it. It is therefore humbly submitted that accused willful conduct of having illicit relations and extramarital affairs squarely falls within the ambit of definition of cruelty as defined under 498A.

11 12 13 14

Smt . Arpita Chakraborty v. Dr . AmitChakraborty, 2008(3) CHN423. Moot proposition 3 at line 18.

Mary v. Raghwan, AIR 1979 MP 40. Saptani v. Jagdish, AIR 1987 Del. 63.
3

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

2.

THAT SANJAY IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the accused in the case namely- Sanjay Yadav has committed an offence of cruelty covered under Sec. 30615 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for which punishment is prescribed under same section. 2.1. THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE PENAL CODE, 1860. It is humbly submitted that the essential ingredients of an offence under this section are: 1. There should be a suicide. 2. The person should have abetted in commission of suicide in accordance with section 107 of IPC.16 2.2. RESHMA HAS COMMITTED SUICIDE. It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that it is evident from the facts of the case that the deceased has died due to overdose of drugs.17 Further injury marks found on the back of the deceased shows that physical cruelty has been committed upon her in addition to the mental injury. It is humbly submitted that the fact, Reshma was under depression and was taking medicine after consultation of doctor 18suggests that she had knowledge as to what amount of medicine is to be consumed. Jatin Sharma v. Sonali Chauhan19 can be relied upon wherein it was said by the court that in cases of death due to drug overdosing under circumstances where matrimonial life is not INDIAN

15 16 17 18 19

The Indian Penal Code, 306 (1860). Kisan @ Pilaji Gangaram Khatale and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr.L.J. 130. Moot proposition 3 at line 18. Moot proposition 2 at line 6. Jatin Sharma v. Sonali Chauhan, AIR 1996 SC 230.

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

going smoothly and one spouse has threatened to commit suicide, it is reasonable to presume that the case is of suicide. It is therefore can reasonably be presumed that she has taken the drugs in excessive quantity intentionally in order to commit suicide only after getting more depressed because of the incidents happened earlier whereby she was subjected to cruelty by her husband. 2.3. SECTION 113-A OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1862 IS ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court and proved above that the accused has subjected his wife with cruelty as defined under Sec. 498A of IPC. Further it is submitted that since Reshma has died on 9th January 201420 within seven years of her marriage Sec. 113-A of IEA is attracted in the instant case. The essential ingredients for raising presumption under Sec. 113-A are following: 1. Wife has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. 2. That her husband or relative of her husband subjected her to cruelty.21 In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Yadla Ramga Rao & ors.22, it has been held by the Apex Court that where the husband conduct was cruel to the extent that it has led his wife to commit suicide in that case the offence of abetment of committing suicide punishable under section 306 of IPC would be clearly met out against accused and for that purpose the presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act can be raised against him. It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that abetment to commit suicide is a mental process of instigating a person to commit suicide. Reliance can be placed on Neni v. State of

20 21 22

Moot proposition 3 at line 13. Jagdeesh Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988 Cr.L.J. 1048.

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Yadla Ramga Rao & ors.,AIR 2003 SC 11.
5

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

Rajasthan23, wherein the facts of the case were quite similar to the instant case; it was held by the court that such suicide has been abetted by accused (husband). It is therefore humbly submitted that in the instant case continuous illicit relationship of accused with other woman and presence of incriminating pictures of Riya and some other persons on accused24 and quarrel between accused and his wife25 clearly suggests that deceased was subjected to cruelty for a long period of time and has been driven by the acts of the accused to commit suicide. In the case of Ramesh Baburao Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh26, where treatment with cruelty meted out to wife was proved and where she committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage court held that 113-A spring into action and accused was liable under section 306 of IPC. It is necessary to reach the cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide for the purpose of raising presumption under 113-A of IEA.27 It is humbly submitted that in the instant case the only cause which has led to commission of suicide by Reshma can be figured out by the threatening statement of Reshma that she will commit suicide if he does not stop doing all these things28 and therefore it can be concluded that she committed suicide only after such act of cruel nature had been committed by the accused. It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that abetment to commit suicide is a mental process of instigating a person to commit suicide. Reliance can be placed on Neni v. State of Rajasthan29, wherein the facts of the case were quite similar to the instant case, it was held by the court that such suicide has been abetted by accused (husband).

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Neni v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cr.L.J. 4527.

Moot proposition 3 at line 1. Moot proposition 1 at line 10.

Ramesh Baburao Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 Cr.L.J. 3364.

HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA 11 (2006) VOL. 3. Moot proposition 3 at line 3.

Neni v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cr.L.J. 4527.

6

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

It is therefore humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the accused has abetted his wife to commit suicide and is liable to be punished under Section 306 of IPC.

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW CURRICULUM MOOT COURT, 2014

PRAYER Wherefore, in the light of above, it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge that: 1. THE ACCUSED NAMELY SANJAY YADAV HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 498A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND IS LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED THEREOF. 2. THE ACCUSED NAMELY- SANJAY YADAV HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC. 306 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CONVICTED THEREOF. Pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit in the light and interest of justice.

Counsel for Prosecution. Date: ______________ Place: ______________ _____________________

xii