RIZVI LAW COLLEGE

MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE INDIA

NEW DELHI, INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (cri) no 1861-62 /1986 CASE CONCERNING THE

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA REGARDING ACQUITTAL OF CONVICTS

IN THE MATTERS OF:

GURBACHAN SINGH
APPELLANTS
V.

SATPAL SINGH & ORS.

RESPONDENTS

On Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………...……………....3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…….……………..………..……..4
STATEMENT OF FACTS…….…………………………………….…5
STATEMENT OF ISSUES....……….………………….……………10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………..11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED…...…...………………………..……….13
PRAYER……………………………………………………………..22

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES

I. http://www.manupatrafast.com
II. http://www,sccoline.com
III. http://www.westlaw.com
IV. http://www.lexisnexis.com

CASES REFERRED

1. N. Suriyalala v A. Mohandass, (207) 9 SCC 196

2. AIR 1950 SC 169

3. Shivanand Gaurisharkar Basvati v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008)
13 SCC 323.
4. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 198p
SC 1972 ; State of H. P. V.Kailas Chand Mohojan, AIRI992 SC 1277;
Methai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358.

5. A.V. Papayya Soastey v. Governewr of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC

1546.

6. Zahira Habibulah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat. AIR 2004 SC 3467.

3
7. M. C. Mehta v. Union of india. AlIR 2004 SC 4618.

8. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Sari, AIR 2005 SC 15.
9. Union of India v. Ers Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
10.DCM v. Enion of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
11.Keshab Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, (1995) 1 Cr.LJ 174 (Ori)
12.Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal no. 462 of 2016,
Decided on 12.05.2016
13. Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
14.Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) RCR 225.
15.1991 SCC (Cr.) 394
16.(1995) III CCR 727.
17. Brij Lal v. Prem Chand & Anr., JT 1989 3 SC 1
18.Beant Singh V. Union Of India & Ors 1977 SCC (1) 220
19.Sukbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 1168
20.Gedu Alias Parameswar Patra v. State of Orissa, SC on 13th July 2016
21.Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another
22.Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab

23.Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab

24.State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal
25.Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707
26. S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.

27.Taylor, 12thedn, s. 364, p.252

28.King Emperor v. U Damapala, (1936)14 ran 666

29.Naina Mohammed re, 1960 Cr.LJ 620

30.Jethalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 Guj 163
31.Md. Alimuddin & Ors. v. State Of Assam, 1992 Cr.LJ 3287
32.Chhotanney & Ors. v. State of UP, AIR 2009 SC 2013
33.State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Baljeet Singh & Karam Singh, AIR 1973 SC
2407
34.Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/SC/0121/1973 : AIR 1973
SC 2773

4
35. Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu No. 165 0f 1971 decided February

25,1972

36.Chitresh Kumar Chopra V.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have appeared before the Honourable Supreme Court of

India in response to the appeal filed by the Appellant. before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India under Sec 136 of the Constitution of India
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ravinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh was married to Satpal

Singh in November, 1962. She died on 25th June, 1983 at about 2.30
P.M. It was alleged, she committed suicide because of the
harassment, constant taunts and cruel behaviour of her in-laws towards
her and persistent demand for dowry and insinuations that she was
carrying an illegitimate child. It is alleged, provoked by the aforesaid
conduct and behaviour she committed suicide. The father-in-law, mother-
in-law and the husband of the deceased have been the abetters of the crime
and the deceased died of second to third degree burns and there was
sprinkling of kerosene oil on her body and the body was burnt by fire.
2. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was absence was
absence of burn injuries on the fingertips of the mother-in-law and other
members of the family. As mentioned before the deceased was married in
November, 1982,After marriage, she used to stay in the house of her in-
laws at Raja Sansi. The deceased used to visit the house of her parents at
Amritsar occasionally, as noted before. During these visits she used to tell
them the her in-laws were not happy with the dowr given to the latter.
3. It is further on evidence that she complained that her in-laws used to taunt
her and insisted on her to bring more dowry. It is stated that she
complained that the in-laws taunted her that at the time of the marriage, her
parents did not serve proper meals to the in-laws and the their guests. It is
further stated that the accused used to tell her that they had been offered
fridge etc by other parties for the marriage of the accused while she had not
brought dowry expected from her parents. It is also on evidence that she
was often openly threatened that she would be turned out of the house in
case she did not bring more articles .These were all established by the
evidence of Gurbachan'Singh, father of the deceased and his two
daughters.It was insinuated of her by the accused that she was also carrying
an illegitimate child.
4. On the totality of evidence on record held that the accused were guilty
of abetment to suicide and as such punishable under Section 306 of the
I.P.C. On appeal by the accused the High Court was of the view that the
guilt of the accused had not been proved and as such acquitted them.
5. The complainant and father of the deceased aggrieved by the order of the
High Court preferred these appeals by way of special leave to appeal.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
Whether this special leave petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
supreme court of India or not?

ISSUE II

Whether the daughter of the petitioner committed Suicide?

ISSUE III

Whether the accused were guilty of abatement to suicide?

ISSUE IV
Whether The Hon’ble High Court erred in acquitting the accused due to its
view that the evidences were too meagre for conviction?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT

BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT.?

1.Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special

leave to Appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India. It vests in the Supreme Court a discretionary power to be
exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstances. Such power is to be exercised with caution and in
accordance with law and set legal principles.
2. In the instantaneous matter SLP 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. The
practice of non-interference in the decisions of lower courts is followed by
the Supreme Court when it is of the view that all relevant factors have been
taken into consideration as in the instantaneous matter.

II. WHETHER THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER

COMMITTED SUICIDE?
As per the statement of Dr. Gurdip Kumar Uppal, who conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased found 2nd to third degree burns on the body of
deceased, the kerosene stove could have caught fire accidentally. The
possibility of the injuries could be caused by the accident was also not
ruled out. Therefore the prosecution has failed to rule out the possibility of
accidental death .

9
III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY OF ABATMENT TO
SUICIDE?

The facts of the case on hand and in the view of the discussions and reasons
and other analysing materials placed on record, The High court found that
charges of abetment to commit suicide are not desirable and the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubts. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded against the
accused are liable to be set aside and consequently, the accused is entitled
for acquittal.

IV. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE

ACCUSED DUE TO ITS VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE WERE
TOO MEAGER FOR CONVICTION?

It is most humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the acquittal
order given by HC in favour of accused is justifiable. As the circumstances
of the case is not of conclusive nature and chain of circumstances is not
complete as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution
has also failed to prove that the guilt of the the accused. The High Court
has acquitted the accused under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, it could not
be said that deceased was being ill-treated or harassed with cruelty on the
account of dowry. When two views are possible, one favourable to the
accused is required to be adopted. Hence conviction should be set aside.
Therefore, accused are not guilty of the offence u/s 306 of IPC.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THIS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA OR NOT ?
1. It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment
of Hon'ble High Court is not maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in
discretion Special leave to Appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India.1
2. It is humbly submitted that SLP 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 [A]
Also, the Supreme Court should restrict itself to interfere in the decisions of
"lower court. [B] Furthermore, the question involved in the present case is
outside the jurisdiction of this court, thus entitled to be dismissed [C]

A. No EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
1. It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the SC will
not interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below unless of
course the findings are perverse or vitiated by error of law or there is gross
miscarriage of justice.
1
Constitution of lndia, 1950.

11
2. Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary
power to the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of
justice under exceptional circumstances2 The SC observed in the Pritam
Singh v. State3, in explaining how the discretion will be exercised generally
in granting SLP: The wide discretionary power with which this court is
invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only
and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in
granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can come up
before it under article 136."
3. Circumspection and circumscription must induce the Court to interfere with
the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or grave
injustice or other recognised grounds are made out4. It is contended by the
respondent 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 5. 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.6

2
N. Suriyalala v A. Mohandass, (207) 9 SCC 196
3
AIR 1950 SC 169
4
Shivanand Gaurisharkar Basvati v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323.
5
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law. 5776 (16th edn Lexis Nexis Buterworth 2011).
6
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G. S. Bhatt, AIR 198p SC 1972 ;
State of H. P. V.Kailas Chand Mohojan, AIRI992 SC 1277; Methai Joby v. George,
(2010) 4 SCC 358.

12
 4. Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless 7, adjunctive, and
unassailable8, in M.C. Mehta v, Union of India 9 and Aero Traders Private
Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri10, it was held that the powers under Article
136 should be exercised with caution and in accordance with law and set
legal principles.
B. NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS
1. If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by
any judicial standard, the ends of justice und the need to maintain judicial
discipline require the Supreme Court to intervene; 11 the Supreme Court in
this case pointed out the errors of the High Court, but, did not interfere in
the decision of the High Court.
2. The Supreme Court does not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the
High Court if it has taken all the relevant factors into consideration and
there has been no misapplication of the principles of law12 Normally, in
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not
interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal
and the High Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some
important piece of evidence has been omitted from consideration. Though
Article 136 is conceived in wildest terms, the practice of the supreme court
is not to interfere on question of fact except in exceptional cases when the
finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court.

II. WHETHER THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTED

SUICIDE?
7
A.V. Papayya Soastey v. Governewr of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546.
8
Zahira Habibulah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat. AIR 2004 SC 3467.
9
M. C. Mehta v. Union of india. AlIR 2004 SC 4618.
10
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Sari, AIR 2005 SC 15.
11
Union of India v. Ers Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
12
DCM v. Enion of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414

13
A. SUICIDE NOT PROVEN
1. The first thing that is necessary for proving the offence is the fact of suicide.
Abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided the thing abetted is an
offence. In the present case all incriminating facts and circumstances are not
found to be compatible as there is no dying declaration of deceased.
2. No evidence points towards the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
in connection with the demand of dowry, immediately prior to her death. And
in the present case there is no proximity between the death of the accused and
the demand for dowry. Similarly, in a case there was a history of beating the
wife up for dowry. But the couple reconciled and resumed joint life. The wife
joined her husband after a long stay with her parents. Within two days
thereafter her parents were informed of her death.
During that time, she had not made any complaint to her parents about dowry
or torture.
3. The court held that section was not attracted because there was no cruelty or
harassment soon before her death.13In our present case too, there was no
evidence of dowry harassment immediately prior to the death of Petitioners
daughter, also SC in its latest judgement14 observed that to record a conviction
the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the
guilt of the accused.
B. ACCIDENTAL DEATH HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT
1. The statement of Dr.Gurdip Kumar Uppal found 2nd to third degree burns on
the body of deceased kerosene stove, and as such the deceased could have
caught fire accidentally. The possibility of the injuries could be caused by the
accident was also not ruled out. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility
of a natural or accidental death 15
13
Keshab Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa, (1995) 1 Cr.LJ 174 (Ori)
14
Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal no. 462 of 2016, Decided on 12.05.2016
15
 Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

14
 C. ESSENTIALS FOR INVOKING SECTION 306 IPC (a) Suicide is Must: - In
the case there is no proof of suicide, no offence u/s 306 is made out. (1994)1
DMC 267. Before a person can be convicted for abetting the suicide of any
person it must be established that such other person committed suicide.16 The
necessary ingredient of section 306 is that the death should be by suicide and
not otherwise.17 Essential and preliminary condition is death by suicide.18 The
evidence in the case suggested that the deceased’s mother in law did not have
burnt finger tips . This fact itself does not rule out accidental death

III. WHETHER THE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY OF ABATMENT TO

SUICIDE?
A. WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF
THE ACCUSED TO BE ACCEPTED19
1. The Supreme Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretionary
power by the HC merely because two views are possible on the facts of the
case.20The High Court has rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove
the ingredients of S. 306 of the IPC and acquitted the accused of the charge
under S. 306. This order of acquittal should not be interfered with by this
Court in this appeal. It is being contended on behalf of the respondents that
if two reasonable views could be taken of evidences, one in favour of the
accused and the other against them the appellate court should not interfere
in such case and the SC should not exercise the discretion to interfere with
the decision, and when the two views are possible, the view in the favour of
the accused to be accepted.21

16
Ramesh Chander v. State of Haryana 1995 (2) RCR 225.
17
1991 SCC (Cr.) 394
18
(1995) III CCR 727.
19
 Brij Lal v. Prem Chand & Anr., JT 1989 3 SC 1
20
Beant Singh V. Union Of India & Ors 1977 SCC (1) 220
21
Sukbir Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 1168

15
B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT OF CONCLUSIVE NATURE
1. It is most humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the
circumstances are not of conclusive nature. In the present case, the HC
acquitted the respondents on the ground that the circumstances are not of
conclusive nature. Also, in the instantaneous case, chain of circumstances
establishes the guilt of the accused. It is also pertinent to note that appellant
has brought up many witnesses before this court, and out of them none of
them is an eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidences. It
is a well settled principle that where the case is solely mainly based on
circumstantial evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various
circumstanced in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and
that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood
of the innocence of the accused.22

C. MENS REA IS NOT ESTABLISHED

1. In a case23 it was opined that in order to bring out an offence under Section
306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the
part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the
person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
2. In a recent case24 also, the Apex Court observed that the basic ingredients
of Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To
constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or
instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or
absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment.

22
Gedu Alias Parameswar Patra v. State of Orissa, SC on 13th July 2016
23
Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another
24
Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab

16
3. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the
accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of
abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 of IPC.
Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 of IPC, thus
criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.
4. The Supreme Court in this case 25 enunciated on the pith and purport of
Section 306 IPC and opined as under:

 Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing.
 More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the
doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

5. The Supreme Court in the case 26 observed that the courts should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to
the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in
a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty27
6. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea28 to commit an
offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the
25
Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab
26
State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal
27
Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707
28
S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.

17
 deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been
propounded by this Court in 

D. THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the
prosecution.29 “Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal
right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must
prove that those fact exists.” When a person is bound to prove the existence
of any fact, it is said that the burden of prooF30 lies on that person.

E. PROSECUTION HAS NOT PROVEN CHARGE BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT :
1. Section 106 of IEA does not cast any burden on an accused person to prove
that no crime was committed by him by proving facts especially within his
knowledge; nor does it warrant the conclusion that if anything is
unexplained which the court thinks the accused could explain, he ought
there to be found guilty.31 It does not affect the onus of proving the guilt of
the accused. That onus rests on the prosecution and is not shifted on to the
accused by the section 106 of IEA32. It cannot be used to shift the onus of
establishing an essential ingredient of the offence on the accused.33
2. The SC ruled out that prosecution cannot derive any advantage from falsity
or other infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not discharge
its initial burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.34 A

29
Sec. 101 of IEA, 1872
30
Taylor, 12thedn, s. 364, p.252
31
King Emperor v. U Damapala, (1936)14 ran 666
32
Naina Mohammed re, 1960 Cr.LJ 620
33
6Jethalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 Guj 163
34
Md. Alimuddin & Ors. v. State Of Assam, 1992 Cr.LJ 3287

18
 reasonable doubt must not be imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt;
but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense arising out of the
evidence of the case.35 Here the accused cannot convict on this ground.
Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own
facts.36Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. 37And here in our case lack of evidence, contradictory
evidences and unreliable circumstantial evidences are enough to make a
common man judge it to be a reasonable doubt. Appellant is falsely
prosecuting the respondent.
3. Therefore, in light of the above discussion and material on record clearly
shows that in the present case the prosecution’s story paid heavy reliance
on unreliable evidence, discrepancy in statements and failed to establish
charge. Moreover, the accused is falsely being framed by the prosecution
which created a large cloud of reasonable doubt which shall only be
considered as a false allegation against accused. The judgment and order of
conviction passed by the HC was based upon proper appreciation of
evidence, the circumstances found established by court in the instant case
have been unnecessarily doubted.

IV. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE

ACCUSED DUE TO ITS VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE WERE
TOO MEAGER FOR CONVICTION

35
Chhotanney & Ors. v. State of UP, AIR 2009 SC 2013
36
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Baljeet Singh & Karam Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407
37
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/SC/0121/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 2773

19
A. PROSECUTION COULD NOT PROVE THE INGREDIENTS OF
SECTION 306,IPC
1. It is most humbly submitted before the Honourable SC that the decision of
the HC is justifiable. The High Court on appeal was of the view that the
guilt of the accused had not been proved as the prosecution failed to
establish the charge against the accused persons and thus acquitted them.
The HC of Punjab & Haryana has set aside the order of Additional Session
Judge in which the court had convicted the accused. The order of the HC is
valid as firstly, the accused are not guilty for the offence of Abetment to
Suicide [A] secondly, the accused is not guilty for the offence of Murder
[B], Because failure of prosecution to establish the charge and there
exists reasonable doubt [C].
2. The evidences were too meagre and unreliable to sustain the conviction. It
is urged that the High Court considered the evidences and came to a
reasonable finding that the prosecution could not prove the ingredients
of Section 306, IPC .Even after the introduction of s. 498A of the I.P.C.
and s. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, the proof must be beyond any
shadow of reasonable doubt.

B. PRESUMPTION UNDER S.113A CANNOT BE RETROSPECTIVE

1. It has been contended on behalf of the accused, respondents that Section

113-A of the Indian Evidence Act was inserted in the Statutes Book by Act
46 of 1983 whereas the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. was committed
on June 23, 1983 i.e. prior to the insertion of the said provision in
the Indian Evidence Act. It has, therefore, been submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the provisions of this Section cannot be
taken recourse to while coming to a finding regarding the presumption as to

20
 abetment of suicide committed by a marriage woman, against the accused
persons.
2. Even if for the sake of argument the presumption is taken, the presumption
of section 113A IEA, 1872 does not arise for conviction under section 306
because the basic ingredient i.e. mens rea is not proved. Also, there was no
preparation proved by the prosecution in the present case as prosecution
has failed to establish the charge

C. DISCREPANCY IN STATEMENT THE WITNESSES & DELAY IN

LODGING OF F.I.R
1. The High Court arrived at this finding on some contradictions in the
statement of the evidences of P.W. 4, Gurbachan Singh, father of the
deceased and of P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur, sister of the deceased respectively
with their statements made under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
2. Appellant is falsely prosecuting the respondent. Therefore, in light of the
above discussion and material on record clearly shows that in the present
case the prosecution’s story paid heavy reliance on unreliable evidence,
discrepancy in statements
3. The High Court drew an inference from the conduct of Gurbachan Singh,
P.W. 4 in making a delay of about 24 hours after receipt of the information
regarding her daughter's death to make a statement to the police about the
incident
4. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in
embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the
report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in

21
 of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted
story as a result of deliberation and consultation.38

D. THE FINDING OF THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE ACCUSED

PERSON COULD NOT BE HELD TO HAVE INSTIGATED OR
ABETTED THE COMISSION OF OFFENCE.
1. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been explained39 in as
follows “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”,
though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or
what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by
his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A
word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. Thus, to
constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke,
incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or
“urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing
that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” ; “to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts”
2. In our present case there is nothing on record to show that the
respondent either instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
none of the witnesses have deposed that the accused abetted the suicide
and that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the
victim to commit suicide. 
3. In the light of the above decisions referred above, which are applicable
to the facts of the case on hand and in the view of the discussions and
38
 Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal appeal No. 165 0f 1971 decided
February 25,1972

39
Chitresh Kumar Chopra V.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

22
 reasons and other analysing materials placed on record, The High court
found that charges of abetment to commit suicide are not desirable and
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubts. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded
against the accused are liable to be set aside and consequently, the
accused is entitled for acquittal.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, it is humbly requested that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the SLP is not maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.
2. Uphold the order of acquittal made by the High Court

23
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honorable Court deems fit
and proper, for this the Respondents shall duty bound pray.

AND /OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

Sd/-
(Counsel for the Respondent)

24