Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Ramesh Kumar V.

State of Chhattishgarh

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of
Ramesh Kumar
(Petitioner)

vs.

State of Chhattishgarh
(Respondent)

On Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Ashutosh Mandavi

(ROLL NO.- 39 SEM : V-A)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY , NAYA

RAIPUR

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

TABLE OF CONTENTS
.

1. List of Abbreviation……………………………………………………..03

2. Index of Authority………….................................………………………04

3. Statement of Facts.....................................................................................06

4. Issues Raised…………………………………………….........………….07

5. Summary of Arguments……………………………………...……….....08

6. Written Submissions..................................................................................9-11

7. Prayer ………………………………………………………..…………..12

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR- All India Report


2. A.P- Andhra Pradesh
3. AP- Andhra Pradesh
4. Art.-Article
5. Bom- Bombay
6. Co- Company
7. Edn- Edition
8. Guj- Gujarat
9. Ltd- Limited
10. Mad- Madras
11. SC- Supreme Court
12. SCC- Supreme Court Cases
13. v- Versus
14. SCC-Supreme Court Cases
15. SCR -Supreme Court Reports
16. TN-Tamil Nadu
17. UOI-Union of India
18. UP-Uttar Pradesh
19. Vol.-Volume

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED:

1.
2. M.P Jain, Constitution of India

CASES REFERRED:
 Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815
 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohan Doss & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 196
 State of U.P. v Ram Manorath (1972) 3 SCC 215 (SC)
 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt(1989) AIR 1972 (SC)
 Saheb Rao v. State of Maharastra,2006 Cri. L.J. 2881(S.C.)
 Virendra Bhatti V. State,1989 Cri. L.J. (N.O.C),196 (Delhi),

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Seema Devi, daughter of Sohan Lal Sharma and Smt. Prabhawati Devi was married with
accused-appellant on 23.6.1985.

2. According to Sohan Lal marriage of Seema with the accused-appellant was performed in a
cordial manner. Dowry, as the parents wished, was given to Seema.

3. On 17.6.1986, within one year of marriage, Seema died of suicide. On 16.6.1986, she
poured kerosene on herself and set herself to fire. Before committing suicide she wrote a
suicide note and a letter to her husband in a diary.

4. Her dying-declaration was recorded on 16.6.1986 by Parmeshwar Dayal, Tehsildar and


Executive Magistrate.

5. Sohan Lal Sharma is a resident of Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. The accused-appellant was
residing in Shantinagar locality of Raipur. Seema's elder sister Shalini married with Dr.
Ramadhar Sharma is also residing in Raipur. Thus, the three families, i.e., the family of father
of Seema, the family of her elder sister Shalini and the family of the accused-appellant are all
residents of Raipur though residing in different localities at reasonable distances from each
other. Nevertheless the three families were on visiting terms as admitted by almost all the
witnesses.

6. The finding of guilt as recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court rests on the
testimony of five witnesses, namely, Atul Kumar, brother of the deceased, Shalini and Dr.
Ramadhar Sharma, respectively the sister and sister's husband of the deceased, Sohan Lal
Sharma and Prabhawati Devi, parents of the deceased..

7. Conviction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-appellant, on charges under Sections 306 and
498-A IPC. He was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC
and to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC, both the sentences having
been directed to run concurrently. The conviction along with sentences has been maintained
by the High Court.

8. This appeal by special leave is directed against conviction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-
appellant, on charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition is maintainable?


2. Whether conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 of IPC is tenable?

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A.1 THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE:-

It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition is not maintainable under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India. Special leave petition can be filed against any judgment or decree or
order of any High Court /tribunal in the territory of India .This is a special power bestowed
upon the Supreme Court of India which is the Apex Court of the country to grant leave to
appeal against any judgment in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved
or gross injustice has been done.
In the present case, there has been no gross miscarriage of justice as the accused-appellant has
been correctly convicted for crime under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

A.2 CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED UNDER


SECTION 306 AND SECTION 498AOF IPC UNTENABLE:-

It is humbly stated that there is indirect evidence that the deceased was for dowry by the
accused-appellant that made her commit suicide. Even the witnesses have testified against the
conviction and admitted that there was nothing apparently disturbing or indicative of cruelty or
tension amongst the newly married couple. There are testimonies based on hearsay facts. Hence,
it is humbly submitted that the conviction of the appellant-accused under Sections 306 untenable
and gross miscarriage of justice.

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

A.1 THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE:-

It is submitted that the appeal filed by the accused appellant is not maintainable as Special
Leave cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special
circumstances exist for case to be maintainable. Also, it will not be granted when there is no
failure of justice or when substantial justice is done. Article 136 does not give a right to a
party to appeal to the SC rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the SC to interfere
in suitable cases. The Supreme Court of India may in its discretion be able to grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment or decree or order in any matter or cause made or passed by any
Court/tribunal in the territory of India.1 The Supreme Court of India may also refuse to grant the
leave to appeal by exercising its discretion. An aggrieved party from the judgment or decree of
high court cannot claim special leave to appeal as a right but it is privilege which the Supreme
Court of India is vested with and this leave to appeal can be granted by it only. 2
In plethora of cases, it has been held that except that where there has been an illegality or an
irregularity of procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice resulting in the absence
of a fair trial or gross miscarriage of justice, the SC does not permit a third review of
evidence with regard to question of fact in cases in which two courts of fact have appreciated
and assessed the evidence with regard to such questions.3
It is contended that the appellant must show that exceptional and special circumstances exists
and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will result and the case has
features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against on merits.
Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 136.4
Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice
is done, though the decision suffers from some legal errors.5
And it is humbly submitted that in the present case there is no injustice caused as the court
below has rightly convicted the accused appellants under Section 306 and section 498A of
Indian Penal Code.

1
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR 2004 SC 1815
2
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohan Doss & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 196
3
State of U.P. v Ram Manorath (1972) 3 SCC 215 (SC)
4
M.P Jain,Indian Constitutional Law, ( 16th edn Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Nagpur 2011) 5776;
see also Constitution of India,1950
5
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt
(1989) AIR 1972 (SC)
8

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

A.2 CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED UNDER


SECTION 306 AND SECTION 498-A OF IPC IS TENABLE:-

It is humbly submitted before the court that the appellant accused is responsible for Section
306 which is abetment for sucide and Section 498A of Indian Penal Code(hereafter referred
as ‘IPC’).
Firstly, dealing with Section 498A of IPC .It talks about the cruelty by husband or relatives of
husband.
In the present case, the Appellant-accused use to beat the deceased on the account that she
was forgetful in many regards and also the accused was suspicious of Seema having an undue
intimacy with co-mate while studying in college and her continuing undue intimacy with old-
time friends, which was not to the liking of the accused. There was marital mal-adjustment
between the deceased and the accused. The accused is a Professor. The deceased did not
come up to the expectations of the accused. She was forgetful and the manner in which she
dealt with the visitors, guests and relations was not to the liking of the accused-appellant. a
There are few writings such as Exbts. D/4 and D/5 which are in the form of essays written by
the deceased which also go to state that there was 'some deficiency' in her, she did not have a
compromising temperament and therefore accused used to get annoyed and get angry on
minor mistakes committed by the deceased.The teasing by the accused-appellant of the
deceased, ill- treating her for her mis-takes which could have been pardonable and turning
her out of the house, also once beating her inside the house at the odd hours of night did
amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and therefore we agree with
the Trial Court as also with the High Court though to some extent at variance with the cause
for cruel treatment that the accused-appellant subjected deceased Seema to cruelty and
therefore conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 498-A deserves to be maintained.

Secondly ,the section 306 of IPC deals with abetment of sucide-those who aid and abet the
commission of sucide by the hand of the person himself who commits the sucide,may be
punishable under this section. Abetment in the Code is constituted by:(i) Abetment by
instigation [Sec. 107(1)] or (ii) Abetment by conspiracy [Sec. 107(2)] (iii) Abetment by aid
[Sec. 107(3).—by intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

In the present case, There is indirect evidence adduced of the accused-appellant having
abetted Seema into committing suicide . The prosecution has relied on Section 113-A of
Evidence Act. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicabilty of Section
113- A, it must be shown that (i) woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been
committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or
his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of
the abovesaid circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by
her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The case has to be decided by reference to
the first clause, i.e., whether the accused-appellant abetted the suicide by instigating her to do
so.

It is beyond doubt that Seema did commit a suicide. Undisputedly, such suicide has been
committed within a year of the date of marriage. What happened on the date of occurrence is
very material for the purpose of recording a finding on the question of abetment.

On the day of the incident he was preparing to go to his duty but Seema was pressing him to
leave her at Shalini's house in Samta colony. The accused had asked her to go there
alone.Presumably because of disinclination on the part of the accused to drop the deceased at
her sister's residence the deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was
overtaken by a feeling of shortcomings which she attributed to herself. She was overcome by
a forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not
deserve to be his life-partner. The accused Ramesh may or must have told the deceased that
she was free to go anywhere she liked. May be that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his
wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister's
residence to see her. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in
marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of
her husband and if the husband had "freed" her she thought impulsively that the only thing
which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her
understanding of the husband's wish and had made her free to commit suicide.

In Saheb Rao v. State of Maharastra,2006 Cri. L.J. 2881(S.C.),the Supreme court held held
that the evidence shows that there was cruelty to the deceased.the facts clearly stated that the
accused created such difficult and hostile environment that she compelled to commit
sucide.the conviction under section 306 and 498A of IPC was held proper.
10

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

In Virendra Bhatti V. State,1989 Cri. L.J. (N.O.C),196 (Delhi), it was held that the sucide had
taken place within the seven years of marriage and the deceased was subject to cruelty at the
hands of the accused husband, a presumption the it was the accused who abetted the
commission of sucide could be drawn and the conviction under section 306 and 498A of IPC
was held proper.

11

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent

humbly submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare

that:

TO HOLD

1. Special Leave Petition is not maintainable

2. Conviction Of The Appellant-Accused Under Section 306 And Section 498-A

of IPC Is Tenable.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Supreme Court deems

fit and proper, in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience, for this the

Respondent shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Place:- New Delhi,India

Date:- 5th October ,2017 Ashutosh Mandavi

(Counsel for the Respondent)

On behalf of Respondent
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattishgarh

12

On behalf of Respondent