T.C.

33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI JUDICATURE
NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINALPETITION NO.__ OF 2017

UNDER SECTION(S)
 498-A,304-B READ WITH SECTION 34 ,INDIAN PENAL
CODE
 SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT,1961

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE STATE OF NCT DELHI …………………………………………...PETITIONER

VERSUS

PRADEEP SINGH AND OTHERS……………………………………...RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

THE FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF CONTENT
S.NO HEADING PAGE.NO

1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

CRPC Code of Criminal Procedure

Del Delhi High Court

Ed. Edition

IPC Indian Penal Code

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Sec Section

v. Versus

govt. Government

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honorable

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
r/w Read with

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

 Baljit Singh vs State of Punjab and Ors.

 Shanti vs State of Haryana
 Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 August, 1962
 Gurbaksh Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632
 Sunita devi vs State of BiharAiR 2005 SC 498
 Balchand Jain v State of MP (1976) 4 SCC 572
 Savitri Agarwal &Ors v State of Maharashtra &Anr2009 CrLJ 4290
 Puran vs Rambilas and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 1632
 Gurbaksh Singh vs state of Punjab AIR 1978 P&H 1
 Adri Dharan Das vs State of West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1057
 Dolat Ram and ors. vs State of Haryana 1995(1) ALT(Cri)379
 BS joshi vs State of Haryana
 Bansi lal vs State of Haryana AIR 2

WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.manupatra.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.highcourtcases.com
 www.scconline.com
 www.livelaw.in
 www.supremecourtcases.com
 www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

BOOKS REFERRED

INDIAN PENAL CODE

 P.S.A PILLAI: CRIMAINAL LAW, 11TH EDN…, 2012
 K.D GAUR: THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 4TH EDN…,2009
 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL: THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 32ND EDN...,2010
 R.C. NIGAM: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF CRIMES

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 LAW OF EVIDENCE

 DR. AVTAR SINGH: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

 BATUK LAL: THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 ABHINAV PRAKASH;CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA’S;CRIMINAL PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE
 R.V.KELKAR’S;LECTURES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

STATUTORY STATUTE

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

 THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973

DICTIONARIES REFERRED

 P. RAMANATHAAIYAR’S CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY (4TH ED.

2012) NEW DELHI: LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA
 WHARTON’S LAW LEXISON( 15TH ED. 2011) NEW DELHI:
UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO.PVT. LTD.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTIONAS INVOKED BY
THE PETITINER UNDERSECTION 498-A, 304-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC,1860 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun-
ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
2. Section 304B. Dowry death.—
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under
normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,
“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
3. 34 Of IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone .
4. Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 Penalty for giving or taking dowry.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pradeep Singh and Preeti Singh belonged to Lucknow in the state of Uttar Pradesh of
India.Their marriage was solemnised on 23.10.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals
according to Hindu Marriage Act ,1955 at a farm house situated in New Delhi. Their
marriage was arrange marriage. In October, 2011 Pradeep and Preeti shifted to New
Delhi along with theirparents Ram Singh (Father-in-law of Preeti) Devi Singh
(Mother-in-law of Preeti) and Shiv Singh (Brother-in-law of Preeti). On 12th June,
2012, Pradeep and Preeti were blessed with a baby boy (Shyam Singh).

On 1st September, 2017 at about 4.30 p.m., Ram Singh (father-in-law) has heard the
cries of Preeti and when he rushed to the second floor of the house, he saw her
burning. He tried to douse the fire. Preeti told him that her son Shyam is lying in the
bathroom. He rushed to the bathroom and found that the child also had burns. Preeti
and her child were taken to the hospital. At about 6.40 p.m., her statement was
recorded by the doctor wherein she stated that she and her son caught fire when she
was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp which accidentally fell down; the oil got spilled
over and both of them got burnt. On receiving the intimation,father of Preeti(Yogesh
Kumar) reached the hospital on the same night. At about 10.55 p.m.,the minor child
shyam expired.

On 19th September, 2017, father of Preeti lodged a complaint with Police against
Pradeep his father (Ram Singh) mother (Devi Singh) and brother (Shiv Singh), inter
alia, alleging that after the marriage of his daughter, Pradeep and his family were
torturing her for not meeting dowry demand of Rs10 lakhs and on 15th July, 2012,
due to torture she had left the matrimonial home, intending to commit suicide but due
to intervention of the relatives, she returned back. On the said complaint, the police
registered an FIR (183/17) against Pradeep and his family for offences under Section
498A read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. In the initial investigation of police it was found that both Pradeep and Preeti
use to fight on petty issues but no angle of dowry came into the picture till now.

On 7th September, 2017 the applicants applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Judge, Saket, who, vide order dated 10th September, 2017, granted
anticipatory bail to them from arrest till the next date of hearing i.e. 18th September,
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
2017. On 17th September,2017, Preeti expired and offence under Section 304-B IPC
came to be added against theaccused. On 18th September, 2017, after hearing both
sides and upon taking into consideration the said statement and witnesses, the learned
Sessions Judge confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.

Aggrieved by the judgment of session court the state of NCT Delhi filed a petition
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
Pradeep and his Family.

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE: I

 WHETHER THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE

ACCCUSED?

ISSUE: II

 WHETHER PRADEEP ANDHIS FAMILY WERE DEMANDING FOR DOWRY

AND TORTURING PREETI?

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE: I

 WHETHER THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE

ACCCUSED?
Anticipatory bail granted to the Pradeep and his family who were accused of
commiting offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B r/w section 34 of IPC
and sections 3 and 4 ,Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 Should not cancel Anticipatory
bail.

ISSUE: II

 WHETHER PRADEEP ANDHIS FAMILY WERE DEMANDING FOR DOWRY

AND TORTURING PREETI?
In the facts given Preet’s father (Yogesh kumar) lodged a complaint against Pradeep
anf his family ,inter alia,alleging that after the marriage of his daughter,pradeep and
his family were torturing her for not meeting dowry demand.On the said
complaint,the police registed an FIR(183/17)Against Pradeep and his family for
offences under 498A read with section 34,IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act
,1961.A

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE: I
WHETHER THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE
ACCCUSED?

1. To the hon’ble HC the respondent has come to this court for the petion filed against
Pradeep and his family for cancellation of anticipatory bail grated to them.
2. In this session court of saket the court does not found any special evidence that
proves that Pradeep and his family murdered and torturing him for dowry.
3. Keeping in view the reports of the Law Commission, Section 438 was inserted in the
Code. Sub-section (1) of Section 438 enacts that when any person has reason to
believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence, he may apply to the High Court or to the Court of Session for a direction that
in the event of his arrest he shall be released on bail, and the Court may, if it thinks fit,
direct that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail. Sub-section (2)
empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to impose conditions enumerated
therein. Sub- section (3) states that if such person is thereafter arrested without
warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, he shall be
released on bail.
4. In Savitri Agarwal &Ors v State of Maharashtra &Anr the Leave was granted by the
session court.Challenge in the appeal is to the judgment and order dated 2nd July,
2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Criminal Applications No.250 and 2081 of 2008, whereby the said two applications
filed by the State and thecomplainant respectively, have been allowed and the
protection granted to the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Amravati vide order dated
18th December, 2007 in terms of Section 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short `the Code') has been withdrawn. The appellants herein are the mother-in-
law, father-in-law, husband and the younger brother of the father-in-law of the
deceased-Laxmi. They are accused of having committed offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short `the IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. In the case Balchand’s jain The observations regarding the nature of the power
conferred by Section 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 mentioned in Section 43712 should be read into Section 438 cannot be treated as
conclusive on the point. There is no warrant for reading into Section 438, the
conditions subject to which bail can be granted under Section 437(1) of the Code and
therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be refused in respect of offences like criminal
breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided for is imprisonment
for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though
of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material
before it justifying such refusal.

6. The Anticipatory bail granted to Pradeep and his family may not be cancelled as
reffered to the cases discussed above.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 ISSUE- II

WHETHER PRADEEP AND HIS FAMILY WERE DEMANDING FOR DOWRY AND
TORTURING PREETI?

1. It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble HC that In the FIR lodged by the Yogesh
kumar against pradeep and his family was not completely investigated by the
police.
2. Acc. to the facts , father of Preeti lodged a complaint with Police against Pradeep
his father (Ram Singh) mother (Devi Singh) and brother (Shiv Singh), inter alia,
alleging that after the marriage of his daughter, Pradeep and his family were
torturing her for not meeting dowry demand of Rs10 lakhs and on 15th July, 2012,
due to torture she had left the matrimonial home, intending to commit suicide but
due to intervention of the relatives, she returned back. On the said complaint, the
police registered an FIR (183/17) against Pradeep and his family for offences
under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.In initial investigation of police it was found that both
praddep and Preeti use to fight on petty issues but no angle of dowry came into
picture till now.
3. As the statement given by Preeti to the doctor she stated that “she and her son
caught fire when she was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp which accidentlly fell
down;the oil got spilled over and both of them got burnt.”.The statement given by
Preeti signifies that it was an accident that caused him and there was nothing done
by Pradeep and his family.
4. In the initial investigation of the police it was found that Preeti and Pradeep use to
fight on petty issues and there was no angle of dowry was found that poves that
pradeep and his family were not torturing Preeti for dowry .
5. And death of his son(Shyam singh) also signifies that why would they try to kill
Shyam whats the advantage they will get by killing shayam.This justifies that it
was just an accident Nothing more.
6. The important point arises that why Father in law of Preeti try to save him if he
wanted to kill Preeti he must have left Preeti buring and let him die but he saved
him and rushed took him to the hospital. Hence Pradeep father has no intention of
killing him.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
7. In the case of Vadde Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 Cr LJ 1666
“In this case, the accused himself has admitted that the deceased was his wife.
P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 have categorically deposed that the marriage between the
accused and deceased took place by exchanging garlands and reading out
PRAMANA PATRIK, that they lived together, one pregnancy was got terminated
and later the deceased also delivered a child who happened to die. In view of the
admission of the accused and the evidence of P.W. 1, 3 and 4, for purposes of
prosecution under S. 304B or 498A, I.P.C. it can safely be held that the
prosecution has established the relationship between the accused and the deceased
as husband and wife in terms of S. 50 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Padmanabha
Reddy, the learned counsel submitted that Sections 304B and 498A, I.P.C. are
new incorporations and by oversight the Parliament has not correspondingly
amended the proviso to S. 50. of the Evidence Act by excluding prosecutions
under Sections 304B and 498A in terms of S. 50. This argument cannot be
countenanced for the simple reason that there is a presumption against the
legislature that it enacts laws with a complete knowledge of all existing laws
pertaining to the same subject, and the failure to bring in the corresponding
amendment to S. 50 of the Evidence Act indicates that the intent was not to repeal
existing legislation. For this proposition of law, it is relevant to notice the decision
of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council v. T. J. Joseph, . There dealing with
the question of implied repeal, the Supreme Court held :"It is undoubtedly true
that the legislature can exercise the power of repeal by implication. But it is an
equally well-settled principle of law that there is a presumption against an implied
repeal. Upon the assumption that the legislature enacts laws with a complete
knowledge of all existing laws pertaining to the same subject the failure to add a
repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal existing legislation
......."
8. As the points argued above Pradeep and his family were not demanding for dowry
and were not torturing Preeti for dowry.

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 PRAYER

In the light of issued raised,Argument advance and authorities cited,may this Hon’ble court
be pleased:The order of the Session court on the ground that the court has grated the
anticipatory bail to Pradeep and his family shall not be cancel the bail and pass such order as
this Hon’ble court may deemed fit and proper.
All of which is respectfully submitted and for this Respondent as an duty bound,shall humbly
pray.

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT