Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
State
Prosecution
Vs.
Vivek and Others
Accused
TABLE OF CONTENT
Content
Page
1. Index of Abbreviation
2. List of references
3. List of cases
4. Statement of jurisdiction
5. Statement of fact
6. Statement of issues
10
7. Summary of pleadings
11
8. Detailed pleadings
12
9. Prayer
32
INDEX OF ABBREVIATION
Section
Sections
Paragraph
Paragraphs
Accused
A.P.
Andhra Pradesh
A.C.
Appellate Cases
AIR
Anr.
Another
Bom.
Bombay
Cri.L.J.
Cr.P.C
IPC
Mad.
Madras
n.
Note
Ors.
Others
PW
Prosecution Witness
SC
Supreme Court
SCC
Sd/-
Signed
Supp.
Supplementary
U.P.
Uttar Pradesh
U.S.
United States
U.T.
Union Territory
v.
Versus
LIST OF WEBSITES
www.courtnic.nic.in
www.manupatra.com
http://indiankanoon.org/
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
judis.nic.in
LIST OF CASES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Learned Session Court, has the jurisdiction to decide this case, and this jurisdiction has
been conferred to it through section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which says that
every offence shall ordinarily be inquired and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed
The Learned Trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter as per section 26 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which says that, any offence under Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) may be tried by the Court of Session. Moreover through Schedule-1 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the Court of Session is competent to here and decide the matter.
The Court is also requested to determine the legal consequences, including the rights and
obligations of the Parties, arising from its judgment on the questions presented in the case.
STATEMENT OF FACT
Case of the Prosecution
The state/prosecution would humbly submit before the Learned session court that following
are the facts of the present cases
1. That following is the list of persons involved
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
PW-1
PW-2
PW-3
PW-4
PW-5
PW-6
Vivek
Gopal Krishan
Pushpa
Raj Kumar
Neha
Veena@Meena
Naresh
Ravi
Umesh
Dr. P Nadda
Husband of deceased
Father-in-law of deceased
Mother-in-law of deceased
Father of deceased
Deceased
Colleague/Neighbor of deceased
Colleague/Neighbor of deceased
Neighbor of deceased
Brother of deceased
Medical Practitioners
2. A-1 was a matriculate and a very ambitious young man. He was a good business man and was
running grocery store at his home with his A-2.
3. At the insistence of his parents he got married with Deceased on December 10, 2011. They
started living with the parents of A-1 in Panchkula.
4. The father of Deceased, Rajkumar told the investigating officers that at the time of marriage
he had given Rs.100, 000 as cash and promised to give an acre of land to her daughter which
was to be registered in the name of Deceased and A-1 and another acre to PW-5 at his
marriage. A-1 had been pressurising Deceased for registration of land in his name.
5. Due to their extra busy schedules they didnt get time to spend time with each other. They
didnt even manage to go for a honeymoon. With the passage of time relations of Deceased
with her husband and in laws get strained.
6. The deceased got very upset when even parents of A-1 kept silent and never ask A-1 to
cooperate with his wife.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Is the offence covered under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
2. Does the act amount to an offence under section 498A of IPC?
3. Is it a Dowry Death as per section 304B of IPC?
4. Is it an offence punishable under section 302 of IPC?
5. Do the accused persons have any Common Intention?
6. What should be the quantum of punishment?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
The state would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court,
1. That, the accused persons are guilty of the offences under Section 302, 304B, 498 read with
section 34 under IPC, 1860 and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
2. That, the accused persons took Rupees 1 Lakh from the deceased father at the time of
marriage and thus committed an offence under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961
3. That , the A-1 with indirect help of A-2 and A-3, always demanded from the deceased to
ask A-4 to get the acre of land registered under the name of A-1 and thus committed an
offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
4. That, A-1 denied to perform matrimonial obligation with the deceased as A-1s demand was
not fulfilled and thus amounted mental cruelty on the deceased.
5. That, A-2 and A-3 silently supported the acts of A-1, and thus the act of A-2 and A-3
amounted to mental cruelty on the deceased
10
Is the offence covered under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
The state would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court,
1. That, as per section 216 of Cr.P.C., 1973, Court is at discretion to alter the charges at any
stage before judgment, and in accordance to which, the prosecution would request the court
to alter the charge sheet and add section 3 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
2. That, as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and
with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is more, thus, taking or giving Dowry shall be punishable,
with a term not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than rupees 15 thousand or the
amount of Dowry.
3. That, as per section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, If any person demands directly or
indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the
case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, thus demanding dowry is an illegal offence.
4. That, section 498A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not attract double
jeopardy, thus the import of word harassment and cruelty is also very well known, and there
is no arbitrary exercise of power in interpreting these word and it does not come in conflict
with article 14 of Indian Constitution.1
2.
Does the act of the accused persons amounts to an offence under section 498A of IPC,
1860?
The state would humbly submit before the Learned Session Court,
1. That, as per section 216 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Court is at discretion to alter the charges at any
stage before judgment, and in accordance to which, the prosecution would request the court
to alter the charge sheet and add section 498A of IPC, 1860.
2. That, in furtherance of afore-stated section, the acts of the accused persons is liable to be
punished on reasonable grounds, which are mentioned below.
3. That, the A-1 subjected the deceased to cruelty. Here Cruelty includes mental torture as per
explanation of section 498A of IPC, 1860.
4. That, the deceased was always subjected to mental torture which is evident from the belowmentioned facts.
a. The A-1, who is highly ambitious of expanding his economical resources,
persistently forced the deceased and her father to register an acre of land in his
name.
b. Due to the non fulfillment of the demands, A-1 did not take the deceased for a
honeymoon, thus not fulfilling his marital obligations.
c. That in furtherance of non fulfillment of the illegal demands of A-1, which was
registration of land in his name, the legitimate demands of the deceased were not
fulfilled.
5. That, For mental cruelty Honble Supreme Court has said that, mental cruelty and its effect
varies according to individual differences, differences in social status differences between
societies, it even said that attitude of a person for another person can also be reason for
mental cruelty9
3.
25
5.
26
30
where the facts are very much similar to this case and the case has been discussed on
following points
1. Motive: the motive in this case is alleged to be the greed of dowry,
2. Dying Declaration: There were 2 dying declaration done to PW1 and PW2.
According to PW2 the deceased told her that her mother in-law poured kerosene on
her and her husband set heron fire
3. Medical Evidence the PW1 the medical practitioner deposed that the deceased had
died of 90% burns.
4. Conduct of the appellant immediately and after the occurrence. Neither of the
accused made any attempt whatsoever to extinguish the fire and save the deceased.
29 (2013) 7 SCC 256
30 (1993) 2 SCC 684
27
That, for the above mentioned reason the accused persons A-1, A-2 and A-3 had a common
intention and so they should be punished and held guilty for all the offences.
28
Sl.No.
01
02
Accused Person
A-1: Vivek
Charges
Section 3 and Section 4 of Dowry
03
A-3: Pushpa
of IPC,1860
Section 302, 304B and 498A read with
04
29
of IPC,1860
Section 302, 304B and 498A read with
PRAYER
It is therefore, prayed that, your lordships may graciously be pleased In the light of
arguments advanced and authorities cited, the prosecution humbly submits that the Learned
Session Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that,
1. The accused persons are held guilty of the offence and are convicted.
and pass any order or orders as your lordship may deem fit as it deems fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness the state shall ever pray.
30