6THFYLC
– RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
BEFORE
THE
HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal
Appellate Jurisdiction
Under
Article 136 of Constitution of India
IN
THE MATTER OF
State of Rajasthan
& Mr. Vikram Gupta………………………….…Appellants
Versus
Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs.
Shalini Goyal, and Mr. Suresh Goyal…...Respondents
UPON
SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………………
|
3
|
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………….
|
4
|
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………….
|
7
|
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………...
|
8
|
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………
|
12
|
SUMMARY OF ARHUMENTS ………………………………………………...
|
13
|
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………...………………..
|
14
|
1. THE
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND Mr. VIKRAM GUPTA IS
MAINTAINABLE IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
|
14
|
1.1 There were many illegalities and irregularities of
procedure and violation of the principles of natural justice resulting in
absence of a fair trial and there was gross miscarriage of justice.
|
14
|
1.2This case is an Exceptional case……………………………………………….
|
16
|
1.3
Appellants have Locus Standi………………………………………………...
|
18
|
1.4 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the
present appeal………………
|
19
|
2. Mr.
Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liable for offences
u/s 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C……………………..
|
21
|
2.1
The essential ingredients of sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C. are
fulfilled to hold Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal
guilty for offences under these sections…………………………………………
|
21
|
2.1.1. There
was Dowry demand by the accused ……………………………….
|
21
|
2.1.2. The deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, mother-in-law, and
father-in-law for demand of dowry soon before her death.
|
23
|
2.1.3 The respondents have committed the dowry
death of the deceased…….......
|
24
|
2.1.4. The act done by all accused persons was in furtherance of common
intention.
|
32
|
2.1.5. All the
accused person are liable for offence under Sec. – 201 of I.P.C. …...
|
33
|
2.2 The respondents are liable for murder of
deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal u/s 302 r/w Sec. – 34 of I.P.C.
|
34
|
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………
|
40
|
ABBREVIATIONS
USED
Sec. : Section
AIR : All India
Report
Art. : Article
Co. : Company
Hon’ble : Honorable
Ltd. : Limited
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court
Cases
I.P.C. : Indian Penal
Code
Cr.P.C. : Criminal
Procedure Code
u/s : under section
r/w : read with
Yrs. : Years
v.
/ vs. : Versus
J.J. : Juvenile
Justice
Cr.L.J. : Criminal Law
Journal
& : and
Pg.
: Page
Ors. : Others
Anr. : Another
Edn. : Edition
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
§ The Indian Penal Code, 1860
§ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
§ The Indian Evidence Act, 1860
§ The Constitution of India, 1950
§ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
§ Domestic Violence Act
CASES REFFERED:-
1. Indira
Kaur and Ors. Vs. SheoLal Kapoor : (1988
)2SCC 488.
2. Anvaruddin
v. Shakoor, AIR
1990 SC 1242.
3. Gauri
Shankar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR
1990 SC 709.
4. Emporium
v. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina : AIR1985SC207.
5. P.S.R.
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. : AIR
1980 SC 856.
6. Sham
Sunder v. Puran : (1990)
4 SCC 731.
7. Pritam
Singh v.State: AIR 1950 SC 169 .
8. Sanwat
Singh V. State of Rajasthan : AIR
1961 SC 715
9. Radha
Mohan Singh @ LalSaheb v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 951.
10. Amanullah
and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors : MANU/SC/0403/2016
11. State
of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995)4
SCC 683.
12. RamakantRai
vs. MadanRai and Ors. : AIR
2004 SC 77.
13. Ashok
Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma, AIR
2002 SC 335
14. Dhakeswari
cotton Mills Ltd. V. C.I.T : AIR1965SC65
15. Pritam
Singh V. State : AIR1950SC169
16. Union
Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991)
4 SCC 584
17. Rafiq
v. State of U.P. , (1980)
4 SCC 262
18. Narpat
Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR
2002 SC 2036
19. Delhi
Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1991 SC 2176.
20. Jagatjit
Distilling Ltd. V. State of Punjab, (1974)
1 ILR 189(Punjab & Haryana).
21. Nageshwar
V. State of Maharashtra :
AIR 1973 SC 165
22. State
of U.P. V. Hari Ram : AIR
1983 SC 1081
23. State
of U.P. V. Anil Singh : AIR
1988 SC 1998
24. Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
2003 SC 3828.
25. Dhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2012
Cr LJ 3156(All)
26. State
of Karnataka v. Balappa, 1999
CrLJ 3064(Kant.)
27. Rita v. Brij Kishore, AIR
1984 Del 291.
28. P Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. 1989
Cr LJ 1186.
29. BirendarPoddar v State of Bihar, (2011)
6 SCC 350.
30. RatanLal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
1994 Cri LJ 1684
31. Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR
2003 SC 976.
32. Kailash
v. State of M.P. AIR
2007 SC 107.
33. Kulwant Singh &Ors. v. State of Punjab,
AIR 2013 SC 1567.
34. Butan Sao v. State of Bihar,
2000 Cr LJ 3122 (Pat).
35. G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka,
(2010) 3 SCC 152
36. Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 2007 SC 107
37. RobbaRamanna
Dora v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000
CrLJ 118(AP)
38. Prabhu
v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1991) Cr LJ 1373.
39. State of
Gujratv.Raghu @ Raghavbhaivashrambhai and Ors. 2003
GLH (1) 699
40. Rameshwar Das v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC
696.
41. Bhagwan
Das v. Kartar Singh,
AIR 2007 SC 2045.
42. Wakkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC
306.
43. Arvind
v. State,
1999 (4) SCC 4861.
44. Thyssen
Stahlunion GmbH V. The Steel Authority
of India : AIR
2002 Delhi 255
45. T.P. Divetia v. State, AIR
1992 SC 2193.
46. State of
Maharashtra and ors. v. Rajkumar and ors. AIR
1982 SC 1301
47. Sanjay Kumar Kesharvani
vs. State of Chattisgarh
48. Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State, AIR
1992 SC 2186.
49. A.M.
Kunnikoya v. State of Kerla, (1993)
1 Crimes 1192 (SC)
50. Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1999 SC 883.
51. Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1991)
1 Crimes 116 (SC).
52. RatanDebnath
v. State of Tripura,
2000 Cr LJ 237(Gau.)
53. State
of Punjab v. Fauja Singh, (1997)
3 Crimes170 (P&H)
54. ShreekantiahRamayya (1954)
57 Bom. LR 632 (SC)
55. State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh,
(1987) 1 SCC 520.
56. Sukhram
v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2007 SC 3050.
57. Jaspal
v. State, AIR
1979 SC 1708.
58. Rajibir v. State of Haryana, AIR
2011 SC 568.
59. Jasvinder Saini &Ors. v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi),
(2013) 7 SCC 256.
60. Prabhu
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991)
Cr LJ 1373.
61. WaikhomYaima Singh v. State of Manipur, 2011 Cr
LJ 2673.
62. Queen-Empress v. Abdullah, (1885)
7 All. 385 FB.
63. Pandian K. Nadar v. State of Maharashtra, 1993
Cr LJ 3883 (Bom)
64. MeesalaRamakishan v. State of A.P. (1994)
4 SCC 182.
65. Bhoora
Singh v. State of U.P. , 1992
Cr LJ 2294.
66. Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR
2003 SC 976.
67. Tarachand
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1962 SC 130.
68. State
of Maharashtra v. KrishnamurthiLaxamipati Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617.
69. Atbir
v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2010)
9 SCC 1
70. Prakash
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1993 SC 65.
71. S.D. Soni. v. State of Gujrat, (1991)
Cr LJ 330 (SC)
72. State
of MP v. Dharkola 2005
CriLj 102 (SC)
73. State
of Kerala v. Bahuleyan
AIR 1987 SC 482
74. Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab,
1993(1) Crimes 616 (SC)
Books Referred:
·
P.M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
12th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013
·
V.N. Shukla, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 9th
Edition, Eastern Book Company
·
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 36th Edition, Lexis Nexis Publications.
·
R.V. Kelkar, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 5th Edition,
Eastern Book Company.
·
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, THE LAW OF
EVIDENCE, 24th Edition, Lexis Nexis Publications.
·
CRIMINAL MANNUAL, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013
·
Professional
book publishers, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
Websites Referred:
Ø www.lexisnexis.com
Ø www.judis.nic.in
Ø www.manupatra.com
STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION
The
Appellants Mr. Raghvendra Singh Sekhawat, Yashodhara Devi, Dev Singh, Nidhi and
Anita have filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Constitution of India
in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the impugned judgment and order
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan.
SYNOPSIS
OF FACTS
1.
The deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal
D/O Mr. Vikram Gupta married to Mr. Suresh Goyal S/O Mr. Dinesh Goyal on
17.07.2012. Both of them studied M.B.A. in same college where they fell
in love with each other. Mr. Suresh himself suggested name of Sharda to his
father for Marriage.
2.
Mr. Dinesh Goyal is a high profile
industrialist and Mr.Vikram Gupta is a rich businessman, having chain of
departmental stores. Both the families knew each other.
3.
Mr. Dinesh Goyal demanded dowry of substantial
value, commensurate with his social status and also demanded to spend minimum
of Rs. 1 crore on the wedding apart from dowry. On 17.07.2012, the day
of marriage agreed dowry was paid to entire satisfaction of the Goyal Family.
4.
On 18th July 2012,
Wedding reception was arranged by Mr. Dinesh Goyal on a very grand and
lavish scale in the presence of more than 5000 attendants which included
Ministers, Senior Officials et. al. The Couple left for honeymoon to
Switzerland and other European Countries for a Fortnight.
5.
Mrs. Sharda Goyal did not receive
proper treatment from her in laws. Mrs. Shalini Goyal, mother-in-law of Mrs.
Sharda made continuous Dowry demand for Mercedes Benj classic car and for F.D.
of Rs. 1 Crore. However a F.D. of Rs. 25 Lakh in the name of Mrs. Sharda Goyal
was given by Mr. Vikram Gupta.
6.
By grace of god, Mrs. Sharda gave
birth to a baby girl. The Goyal family was not happy and was cursing Mrs.
Sharda Goyal. She was cursed, rebuked and sent to parental house. Mrs. Sharda
Goyal was maintaining a daily diary noting every incident minutely.
7.
On 20.05.2015 Suresh Goyal
reached his in-laws house and apologized for mistreatment of his family. He
sought consent of Sharda and she returned to Goyal Palace. But relationship
between Sharda Goyal and her husband continued to be estranged due to demand of
dowry and excessive drinking of Suresh Goyal who started abusing and beating in
the presence of servants.
8.
On 24.05.2015 Mr. Dinesh
Goyal purchased Organophosphorus sold under trade name of “NUVAN”
from P.W.-1 – Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a shopkeeper on the pretext that he
required the same to kill the flies.
9.
On 25.05.2015, Mrs.
Shalini Goyal forcibly administered poison to the deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal to
kill her. Mr. Suresh also held the body of deceased physically and forced her
to drink. During the course of administration of poison deceased struggled as
such sustained injuries on her face, lips and neck.
10.
Om Prakash, PW-4 informed the
police at about 4.30 a.m. On that Biru Ahmad, PW-7 entered the
information in the daily diary and proceeded towards the spot. He found the
deceased lying on the bed in an unconscious position. Dr. O. P. Chaudhary,
PW-8, examined the deceased at about 6 a.m. and noted the patient was
semi-conscious with history of consumption of poisonous substance. He
administered the initial treatment. He carried out Gastric Lavage first with
saline solution and then with ordinary tap water. Thereafter he referred the
deceased at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur which was informed to the police. She died
at the Hospital.
11.
Post mortem was conducted by Dr.
Piyush Kapila, PW-9 in association with Dr. V. K. Mishra. They opinioned
that death of deceased was caused due to asphyxia, secondary to
organophosphorus poisoning.
12.
Mr. Vikram Gupta,
father of deceased lodged a report at the Police Station mentioning the
harassment caused by the three accused to the deceased for dowry. He stated
that all the three accused namely Shri Dinesh Goyal, Smt. Shalini Goyal and
Shri Suresh Goyal had forcibly administered poison with intention to kill his
daughter for non-fulfillment of further demand of dowry. Death had occurred due
to mal-treatment by the accused and action be taken against them. FIR No.
466 of 2015 was registered under sections 498A, 304B, and 305/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
13.
The police found the diary which
was exhibited and relied for domestic violence & dowry demand. Charges
under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC were framed
against the accused persons. Charges were also framed under the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 for demand of Car and Fixed Deposit.
14.
Accused Shri Dinesh Goyal in his
statement under section 313 Cr. PC did not deny the factum of the
deceased having died due to poison. It was stated by him that the deceased had
disclosed to him that she had consumed some drugs and had asked him to give her
salty water. Deceased was under convulsion due to some drug. He had given her
water to vomit. He had firstly and then to S.M.S. Hospital called Dr. O.P.
Chowdhury. Deceased was a sensitive lady. His relationship with the deceased
was cordial. He examined 3 witnesses in defense, who stated that Shalini Goyal
was happy in Goyal House and their relations were cordial and she was treated
as a daughter.
15.
Finding of the Trial Court:The
trial court acquitted the mother-in-law on the plea there is no direct evidence
and she is woman. Shri Suresh Goyal was also acquitted being youth of 30 years.
However, convicted the father-in-law Mr. Dinesh Goyal for commission of offence
under section 302 IPC and awarded imprisonment for 7 years with no fine.
16.
Findings of the Hon’ble
Rajasthan High Court: The state and Mr. Vikram Gupta
filed an appeal before Hon’ble High Court pleading life imprisonment for Dinesh
Goyal, imprisonment for 7 years for Mrs. Shalini Goyal, imprisonment for 5
years for Mr. Suresh Goyal. Mr. Dinesh Goyal also filed an appeal against
conviction.
The
Hon’ble High Court acquitted Mr. Dinesh Goyal on the following grounds-:
Ø
Chain of circumstances is not complete
so as to unerringly point to the guilt of accused.
Ø
The possibility of victim committing
suicide cannot be ruled out.
Ø
The prosecution has failed to prove that
poison was in possession of the accused.
Ø
The Trial Court did not convicted the
accused u/s 304-B & sec.-498A.
Ø
The victim did not named the accused as
responsible for administering poison.
Ø
When the two views are possible, one
favourable to the accused is required to be adopted.
Appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court
The State of Rajasthan and Mr. Vikram
Gupta filed an appeal under Article 136 of Constitution of India in Hon’ble
Supreme Court against the order and judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan. The appellants plead for conviction of Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh
Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal u/s 302,304-B, 498A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C
STATEMENT
OF ISSUES
1.
WHETHER THE SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION FILED BY STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND Mr. VIKRAM GUPTA IS MAINTAINABLE
IN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA?
2.
Whether Mr. Dinesh
Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liable for offences u/s 302,
304-B, 498-A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C.?
Ø Whether
all the accused persons are liable for dowry death of deceased u/s 304B and
498A of I.P.C.?
Ø Whether
the act of accused persons was in furtherance of common intention according to
Sec. 34 of I.P.C?
Ø Whether
accused persons are liable u/s 201 for misapprociation of evidences?
Ø Whether
the accused persons are liable for murder of deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal u/s 302
of I.P.C?
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS
1.
THE SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION FILED BY STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND Mr. VIKRAM GUPTA IS MAINTAINABLE IN
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
It
is most humbly and respectfully submitted that Special Leave Petition filed by
appellants under Article 136 of Constitution of India is maintainable as the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court is tainted with serious legal
infirmities. The judgment of Hon’ble High Court is wrong in law and also
violates Principle of Natural justice. There has been gross miscarriage of
Justice and Appellants had not been given a fair trial.
The
judgment of Hon’ble High Court is wrong on both facts and laws. Thus the
appellants have the Locus Standi and Hon’ble Supreme Court also has the
jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 136. It is also submitted that it
is a settled law that when there is grave injustice, then Hon’ble Supreme Court
is bound to interfere with the findings of court whose judgment is under
appeal. Thus Special Leave Petition filed by appellants under Article 136 of
constitution of India is maintainable.
2.
Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr.
Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liable for offences u/s 302, 304-B,
498-A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C.
It
is humbly submitted that respondents Mrs. Shalini Goyal and Mr. Suresh Goyal
are liable for offences punishable u/s 498A, 304B, sec. 302 r/w sec. 34 of
I.P.C. The learned trial court acquitted Mrs. Shalini on ground of being a lady
and Mr. Suresh on ground of being a youth of 30 years which is wrong in law.
There are sufficient evidences to prove that deceased was continuously harassed
and tortured for dowry. Mrs. Shalini Goyal administered poison to the deceased
and his son Mr. Suresh forcibly held the body of deceased to make her drink the
poisonous substance. Mr. Dinesh Goyal
refused to take Mrs. Sharda to hospital and said “Nothing has happened” which
shows that he intentionally wanted to delay the medical assistance to deceased.
It
is clearly evident from statements of Prime Witnesses, medical evidences and
other circumstantial evidences that deceased died in unnatural circumstances
within 7 years of marriage and there were evidences that deceased was subjected
to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of
dowry. Thus all the accused persons are liable u/s 304B, 498A r/w Sec. 34 of
I.P.C.
The
accused intentionally disappeared the bottle of poison, clothes of deceased in
order to save themselves from conviction. Thus they are also liable u/s 201 of
I.P.C.
The
dying declaration of the deceased in form of signs to PW-5 & 6 makes all
the accused persons liable for murder of deceased u/s 302 of I.P.C.
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED
1)
THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY
APPELLANTS UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
Ø Art. 136 of Constitution Of India States
that“Notwithstanding
anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India”[1]
1.1 There were many illegalities and irregularities
of procedure and violation of the principles of natural justice resulting in
absence of a fair trial and there was gross miscarriage of justice.
·
It is
most humbly and respectfully submitted that learned trial court and Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan acquitted
the respondents on the grounds which are judicially incorrect and violate legal
principles.
Learned trial court acquitted Mrs. Shalini on
ground that she was a woman and acquitted Mr. Suresh on the ground that he was
a youth of 30 years.[2]
Learned Trial court, although convicted Mr.
Dinesh Goyal u/s 302 of I.P.C. but awarded him imprisonment for only 7 years.[3]
·
It is
submitted that the Judgment of trial court was tainted with serious legal
infirmities as the court overlooked the facts, evidences and legal principles
and delivered the judgment on basis of conjecture and surmises.
The trial court was also not justified in
awarding imprisonment of 7 years to Mr. Dinesh as it is mentioned in Sec. 28(2) of Cr.P.C. that “ a session judge or Additional session
judge may pass a sentence authorized by
law,*****” but minimum punishment u/s 302 is life
Imprisonment.
The judgment of Hon’ble High Court is tainted with serious legal
infirmities
·
It is
most humbly submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan overlooked the
facts and evidences and refused to convict Mrs. Shalini and Mr. Suresh as well
as acquitted Mr. Dinesh ignoring the facts and evidences. It is humbly
submitted that High Court has acted perversely while appreciating the
evidences. The conclusions of the High court are manifestly perverse and
unsupportable from the evidence on record.
·
The Hon’ble High Court did not properly
appreciate the evidences on record. It is submitted that death of deceased was
homicidal and not accidental. The death was unnatural and it is clearly shown
by chain of circumstantial evidences that respondents were liable for the death
of the deceased. If it had been a suicide then the accused would have seriously
made an attempt to save the life of deceased which was not done in this case.
The deceased was taken to hospital after several hours of poison consumption
and also the request of servants, relatives (who are also prime witnesses in
this case) to take the deceased to hospital was ignored by the accused.
·
Further,
no suicide letter was found, neither the circumstances were prima facie
explaining the reason that why the deceased committed the suicide?
·
It is
humbly submitted that there are enough evidences to prove that deceased was
harassed for non-fulfillment dowry demand and she was also tortured and
harassed ‘Soon
before her death ’.
·
It is
most humbly submitted that the High Court cannot deny to convict an accused for
an alleged offence just because trial court had not convicted the accused on
that charges, it is duty of High Court to re-appreciate the evidences and
witness on record and then reach on any conclusion. In the present case the Hon’ble High Court said that since the trial
court has not convicted the accused under section 498A or section 304-B, IPC,
it could not be said that the deceased was being ill-treated or harassed with
cruelty on account of dowry.[4]
·
That
the murder would have been done with better poison[5]
or better weapon cannot be the ground for acquittal of accused but this was one
of the grounds of acquittal of accused by Hon’ble High Court.
·
Thus it
is most humbly submitted that grounds on which Hon’ble High Court acquitted the respondents
are judicially incorrect and are against the weight and nature of evidences on
record and thus, scrutiny and re-appreciation of facts and evidences is needed
by this Hon’ble
court in interest of justice.
“Article 136 does not oblige this Court to fold its hands and become
a helpless spectator even when this Court perceives that a manifest injustice
has been occasioned. If and when the Court
is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is not only the 'right' but
also the 'duty' of this Court to reverse the error and the injustice and to
upset the finding notwithstanding the fact that it has been affirmed thrice.”
·
It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble
Supreme Court held in case of Anvaruddin
v. Shakoor[7]that
in an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court would be justified to
interfere when approach of the High Court is far from satisfactory (as in the
present case) and where the High Court has completely misdirected itself in
reversing the order of conviction by trial court.[8]
Thus Hon’ble Supreme Court is duty bound to interfere with the findings of
Hon’ble High court if it is satisfied that
injustice has been done.
Ø In case of Emporium v. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina[9],
It was observed that-“Jurisdiction has to be exercised
sparingly. But that cannot possibly mean that injustice
must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case.”
Ø In case of, P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr.[10]It was held that –“Justice is functionally outraged not
only when an innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets
away with it stultifying the legal system. The deep concern of the law is to
track down, try and punish the culprit, and if found not guilty, to acquit the
accused”
Ø It was held in the case of Sham Sunder v. Puran[11]―“Where the High Court has completely missed the real points
requiring determination and has on erroneous grounds discredited the evidence,
the Supreme Court would be justified in going into the evidence to avoid the
grave injustice.”
1.2 This case is an Exceptional case
It is most humbly submitted that this case is
an exceptional case as special and exceptional circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
against .
It is most humbly submitted that a fair trial is fundamental right
of all the parties associated with the case, which in this case is violated
that of appellants.
1.2.1 Question of Law is involved in
the present case
·
It is
most humbly submitted that this case involves 2 important questions of laws
that needs to be decided by this Hon’ble court.
Whether the diary of deceased has evidentiary value?
It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble high court did not consider diary of
deceased as material evidence. The diary of deceased revealed about her
harassment and torture by her in-laws.
It is submitted that when death occurs
in a matrimonial home, it is hard to find direct evidences, thus any evidence
which can prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, must not
be ignored . Thus it is most humbly submitted that diary of deceased has a strong
evidentiary value.
Whether the statement of deceased in signs can be considered as
verbal dying declaration?
It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble High Court did not consider the act
of deceased pointing towards Mr. Dinesh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal when asked
by a relative as to what has happened, as dying declaration. It is most humbly
submitted that dying declaration of a deceased cannot be circumscribed to
words, written or spoken because when a person is not in position to speak, the
statement of person has to be recorded in signs. The statement of deceased in
form of signs could not be disbelieved just because she only pointed towards
the accused. Her pointing towards the
accused is consistent with the facts, evidences and course of events. Thus it
is most humbly submitted that statement of deceased in signs must be considered
as dying declaration in interest of justice.
Ø In case of Pritam Singh v. State[12],
Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that-“The wide discretionary power with which the court is invested under
it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.”
Ø In case of Sanwat Singh V. State of Rajasthan[13],
Hon’ble
supreme court held that-“Supreme Court will grant special leave to appeal in exceptional
cases where grave and substantial injustice has been done by disregard to the
forms of legal process or violation of principle of natural justice or
otherwise.”
Thus it is most humbly submitted that this case is an exceptional
case.
It
is humbly submitted that as held in case of Radha Mohan Singh @ LalSaheb v.
State of Uttar Pradesh[14]
“Re-appreciation of evidences is permissible only if an error of law or
procedure and conclusions arrive at are perverse” and thus in this case
there is need of re-appreciation of evidences by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
1.3
Appellants have Locus Standi
Ø In case of Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors[15].,
the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Para. 23, observed the general meaning of Locus Standi –The term 'locus standi' is a Latin term,
the general meaning of which is 'place of standing'. The Concise Oxford English
Dictionary, 10th Edn., at page 834, defines the term 'locus standi' as the
right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The traditional
view of 'locus standi' has been that the
person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court,
i.e., to say he only has a right to move the court for seeking justice. Later,
this Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict Rule with regard
to 'locus standi', allowing any person from the society not related to the
cause of action to approach the court seeking justice for those who could not
approach themselves. Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial,
which is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Since, offence is
considered to be a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against
the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the State to get
the culprit booked for the offence committed by him.”
·
It is
most humbly and respectfully submitted that appellants, both State and the
complainant both have Locus Standi in the present case. The appellants are aggrieved parties and are
affected by the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan high court. Their rights have
been violated.
·
It is
most humbly submitted that Appellants have direct connection with the matter at
hand. The private party i.e. Mr. Vikram Gupta is father of deceased, thus he
has a direct connection with the case. It is well settled that a private party
can file an appeal under Article 136 challenging the order and judgment of High
Court[16]
. Since, offence is a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution
against the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the
State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. Thus state
also has a direct connection with the case.
Ø In case ofRamakantRai v. MadanRai and Ors. [17]
, Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that –“The exercise of the power of this Court
is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it. Where a
judgment of acquittal by the High Court has led to a serious miscarriage of
justice, this Court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from
interfering on the ground that a private party has invoked the Court's
jurisdiction.“
Ø In case of Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh , the Hon’ble supreme court held that –
“Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by
special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private party
that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court”
Thus it is humbly submitted that Appellants have Locus Standi in
the present case.
1.4 Hon’ble Supreme Court has Jurisdiction to hear this
appeal under Article 136 of Constitution of India
Ø It
is most humbly and respectfully submitted that this court has jurisdiction to
hear the present case. It is submitted that power given by Article 136 is
however, in nature of special and residuary power which is exercisable in cases
where the needs of justice demand interference by Supreme Court of land. The
article itself is worded in the widest terms possible.
Ø As
held in the case of Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. Sharma[18]
“It is well settled that article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on
any party, but it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to
interfere in the suitable cases”
“It is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of the
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court by the constitutional provision
made in article 136. The limitations, whatever they are, are implicit in the
nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and
overriding power, naturally it should be exercised in special and extraordinary
situations
“By virtue of this article; we can grant
special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income-tax cases, in cases
which come up before different kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other
cases “
The Hon’ble Supreme Court can interfere in order
to prevent injustice[21]
and errors of law[22].
Under Art. 136 Supreme Court is vested with an overriding power by virtue of
which the Court may take step in to impart justice[23].
It may entertain by granting Special Leave against any order made by
Magistrate, Tribunal or any subordinate court on its own discretion[24].It
is humbly submitted that this provision is applicable for all kind of appeals[25]
irrespective of the nature of the subject matter.
It is most humbly submitted that in an
appeal under Article 136, Hon’ble Supreme Court may re-examine or reassess
the evidences if it becomes necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.[26]or
if the decision of the High Court is based on conjectures and not sound
reasoning[27]
or if the acquittal is perverse in nature and manifestly illegal[28]
, then Hon’ble
Supreme Court would be justified in interfering with order of High Court.
Thus it is most humbly submitted that this case falls under
jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of Constitution of India and this
Hon’ble
Court also has jurisdiction to re-assess and re-appreciate the facts and
evidences on record.
THUS IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED THAT SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION FILED BY APPELLANTS UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS
MAINTAINABLE.
2
Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr.
Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liablefor offences u/s 302, 304-B,
498-A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C.
The chain of circumstantial evidences is so complete that it
without any reasonable doubt, points towards the guilt of accused.
a. The
essential ingredients of sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C. are fulfilled
to hold Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal guilty for
offences under these sections.
Ø
304B.
Dowry Death-
where the
death of any 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 marriage 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.[29]
Ø 498A.-Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.- whosoever being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for the term which may extended to
three yrs. and shall also be liable to fine.[30]
It is humbly submitted that as held in the
case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu[31]
the presumption of Dowry Death shall be raised only on the proof of following
essentials:-
(1)
The
question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the Dowry
death of a women.
(2)
The
women was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3)
Such
cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4)
Such
cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
2.1.1.
There was Dowry demand by the accused
According
to Sec.-2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 “Dowry" means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or
indirectly--
(a) By one party to a marriage to the other
party to the marriage; or
(b) By the parent of either party to a
marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other
person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or Maher in the case
of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.[32]
According
to Black's Law Dictionary, term “dowry”can
be defined as the property which a woman brings to her husband in
marriage, or the effects which the wife brings to the husband to support the
expenses of marriage.[33]
·
It is humbly
submitted that Mr. Dinesh Goyal while having talk with Mr. Vikram Gupta for
marriage of Mr. Suresh & Mrs. Sharda, demanded dowry of substantial value,
commensurate with his social status and also asked him to spend minimum of Rs.
1 Crore on the wedding apart from the dowry. [34]
·
The
marriage was performed on 17.07.2012and the agreed dowry was paid
to the entire satisfaction of the social family.[35]
·
In
survey conducted by Commissioner of Income-Tax u/s 133A (5) wherein
photographs of the wedding ceremony, venue etc. was video graphed, statements
of event manager, decorator, electrician, caterers, taxi suppliers etc. were
recorded. Photographs and Video recording showed assets and items given in dowry.[36]
·
Even after marriage Mrs. Sharda Goyal
did not receive proper treatment from her in-laws. Mrs. Shalini Goyal was
making dowry demands for Mercedes Benj Classic car and for a fixed
deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. A F.D. of Rs. 25 lakh was given by Mr. Vikram
Gupta.[37]
As held in the case ofDhan Singh v. State
of U.P.[38]“The
object being that everything, which is offending at any time i.e. at, before or
after marriage, would be covered under definition of dowry but the demand of
dowry has to be in connection with marriage.” Thus the above contentions
proves that there was a dowry demand.
Ø Daily diary of deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal
proves that there was a Dowry demand
It is humbly submitted that after death
search, police found the diary which was exhibited and relied for Domestic
violence and dowry demand. The diary belonged to deceased Mrs. Sharda
Goyal in which she was noting every incident minutely.
According to sec.-45 of Indian Evidence
Act- opinions upon that point of persons especially skilled in
questions as to identity of handwriting are relevant facts and sec.-47 of
Indian Evidence Act-opinion as to handwriting is relevant. The diary is
a very important evidence in proving that there was dowry demand by the
accused.
The contents of diary is admissible as an
evidence and can be relied upon as it corroborates certain circumstantial
evidences in this case.
Thus, it humbly submitted that there was a
dowry demand in this case and all the accused are liable under sec. 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.1.2. The deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal was subjected
to cruelty and harassment by her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law for
demand of dowry both after marriage.
According to explanation for the purpose of
Sec. 498-A, “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 any failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand.[39]
The
contentions which prove that there was cruelty and harassment with deceased are
as follows-:
·
It is
humbly submitted that after marriage Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs. Shalini Goyal
started ill-treatment with deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal for demand of dowry. With
mental disturbance and non-congenial atmosphere Mrs. Sharda Goyal could not
conceive. Her relations with her husband became strained. Her mother-in-law
threatened to give birth to a baby boy, within one year, else she would be
thrown out and she would re-marry her son.
A written
apology was tendered by Mrs. Shalini Goyal after the intervention of family
friends for the compromise.[40]
·
Mrs. Sharda Goyal gave birth to a baby
girl, but the Goyal family was not happy and was cursing Mrs. Sharda Goyal. No
usual ceremonies and festivities were organized. She was cursed, rebuked and
sent to parental house.[41]
In the case of State of Karnataka v.
Balappa[42]it
was held that “The conduct of the accused husband and his father in not
accepting the birth of Baby Girl was held as amounting to cruelty”
·
Mr.
Suresh Goyal himself apologized for mis-treatment of his family and Mrs. Sharda
returned to Goyal house but relationship between Sharda Goyal and
her husband continued to be estranged due to demand of dowry and excessive
drinking of Suresh Goyal who started abusing and beating in the presence of
servants.[43]
In the
case of Rita v. Brij Kishore[44]it
was held that “A habit of excessive drinking is a vice and cannot be considered
a reasonable wear and tear of married life. It may constitute treatment with
cruelty. It may cause great anguish and distress to the wife and for her living
together can be not only miserable but also unbearable.”
In case ofP Bikshapathi v. State of A.P.[45]it
was held that- Presumption under Sec. 113B was drawn from the drinking, late
coming and beating habits of husband.Thus the act of Mr. Suresh Goyal of excessive drinking and beating his wife
ammounts to cruelty. Thus, it is humbly submitted that all the accused are
liable for offence u/s 498A and Sec. 3 of Protection of woman from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
2.1.3. Mr. Dinesh, Mr. Suresh and Mrs.
Shalini have committed the Dowry death of deceased Sharda Goyal.
It is humbly submitted that on 25. 05.
2015all the accused forcibly administered the poison named “NUVAN” to the
deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal. The deceased died due to organo phosphorus
poisoning and delay in medical treatment.
According to Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Birendar Poddar v State of Bihar[46]“
it is true that in cases where death takes place within the matrimonial home
, it is very difficult to find direct evidence.”
As held in the case of Ratan Lal v. State
of Madhya Pradesh[47]
“In dowry death cases and in most of such offences direct evidence is hardly
available and such cases are usually proved by circumstantial evidences.”
113B-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Presumption as
to dowry death-When
the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of woman and it
is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
Dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.[48]
The prime witnesses and circumstantial evidences which
proves that there was cruelty with deceased soon before her death and she was
administered poison by her in-laws and husband are as follows-:
1. PW-1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a shopkeeper told that Mr. Dinesh Goyal
purchased organo phosphorus “NUVAN” on 24.05.2015 on the pretext that he
required the same to kill the flies.
According to High Court – the evidence of PW-1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a
shopkeeper is not reliable. The Hon’ble court did not mentioned the ground on
which his statement was not relied upon. It is humbly submitted that he is a
very important and a disinterested witness in the case. Thus, his statement
shall be reliable and admissible.
2. PW-2 Mr. Surendra Kumar, a servant heard the shrieks and cries of the
deceased and extreme weeping of her child. He stated thatthe
deceased was crying “Give me salty water. I do not want to die.”
3. PW-3 Mr. Ved Prakash& PW-4 Mr. Om
Prakash, the servantsstated
that they smelt the poisonous odour in the room. The deceased was
lying on the bed having bruises and contusions on her face. Water was splashed
on the bed as well as on the floor of the room. The clothes of the deceased
were also drenched. Shri Om Prakash, PW-4, requested Shri Dinesh Goyal and
Suresh Goyal to take the deceased to the hospital immediately. However the
accused replied that there was no necessity therefore and that deceased would
be all right very soon.
4. PW-5 Mr. Anil Kumar & PW-6 Mr. Shiv Kumar,
relatives of the deceased who arrived at
Goyal house on the same day stated that they noticed the
condition of the room and also the precarious and deteriorating condition of
the deceased. When they asked the accused what had happened, he reported that
it was his private life and they need not bother. The accused refused to take
the deceased to the hospital on the pretext that nothing had happened and he
himself being father-in-law could look after her. They also smelt the poisonous
odour in the room.
In the case of Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh[49]it
has been held regarding “interested witness” that the relationship is not the
factor to affect the credibility of witness. Thus PW-5 Mr. Anil Kumar &
PW-6 Mr. Shiv Kumar, relatives of the deceased are credible witnesses in this
case.
From the statements of the prime witnesses mentioned
above it is clearly evident that the death of deceased took place in abnormal
circumstances. If it had been the case of suicidal poisoning or accidental
poisoning the accused would have had made the serious efforts to save life of
Mrs. Sharda Goyal by giving her appreciate medical treatment or by taking her
to hospital.
The request
of servants and relatives of deceased to take her to the hospital was also denied.
This act of all the accused shows that a mensrea i.e. evil intention for
murder of deceased was present. Theactusreus in this case was performed
by the accused in two parts- (i) by committing an act of administering the
poison to the deceased. (ii) By act of omission of duty of care and proper
medical treatment to the deceased.
The expression “otherwise than under normal
circumstances” means a death not taking place in the course of nature and
apparently under suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns or bodily
injury.[50]
It is humbly submitted that in this case the death of
deceased was not Natural death and it occurred under suspicious circumstances.
In the similar case of Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State
of Punjab[51]
“The wife was harassed by her husband and in-laws for dowry and that she died
under abnormal circumstances due to aluminum phosphide poisoning. The accused
were held guilty of offences u/s 304-B & Sec. 498A of the I.P.C.” and in
case of Butan Sao v. State of Bihar[52]
“where death was proves to have been caused by poisoning and there was
consistent evidence of torture for demand of dowry, it was held that the fact
husband killed his wife stood proved and conviction was proper.
It is humbly submitted that the information to police
about the incident at around 4:30 a.m. was given by servant PW-4 Om Prakash,
not by any of the member of Goyal family.
On that Biru
Ahmad, PW-7 entered the information in the daily diary and proceeded
towards the spot. He found the deceased lying on the bed in an unconscious
position.
v “There must be material to show that soon
before the death of woman, such woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment
for, or in connection with demand of dowry then only a presumption can be drawn
that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman” as held in the case
of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka[53]
v “The word “soon before” in sec. 113B of
Indian Evidence Act cannot be limited by fixing the time limit. It is left to
be determined by the courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of the
case” as held in the case
of Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh[54]
Medical
evidences in the case
PW-8 Dr. O.P.
Chaudhary – examined the deceased at 6 a.m. and
noted that patient was semi-conscious with the history of consumption of
poisonous substance. The ante-mortem findings were as follows-:
(i)
Contusion reddish in color over
the lateral side of her right eye brow with swelling present of the size of 7
cm. x 5 cm. and
(ii)
(ii) Both lips were swollen. It was also noted
that complete examination of the body could not be done because patient was in
serious condition.
(iii)
B.P. was not recordable and Pupils
bilateral circular, pin point not reacting to light.
He administered the
initial treatment. He carried out Gastric Lavage first with saline solution and
then with ordinary tap water. Thereafter he referred the deceased at S.M.S.
Hospital, Jaipur. Mrs. Sharda Goyal died at the hospital.It is humbly submitted
that according to PW-8 Dr. O.P. Chaudhary contusions was reddish in colour.
This signifies that bruises were fresh.[55]
The findings depicts the marks of cruelty & harassment over the deceased.
Findings of the
post-mortem
PW-9
Dr. Piyush Kapila and Dr. V.K. Mishra conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased. They opinioned that the deceased died due to
asphyxia.It was a Toxic asphyxia and the
level of obstruction was Lung, its cause was due to failure of oxygen
transportation/utilization, CO or cyanidepoisoning which was the result of
consumption of NUVAN, the organo phosphorus.
Asphyxia is a condition arising when the body is deprived of Oxygen, may
lead to death. It can be caused by Drug Overdose It is humbly Submitted that
Organo phosphorous are powerful inhibitors of acetylcholinesterases. Organic
phosphates inhibit ACHE in all parts of the body which lead to paralysis of
nerves and muscles i.e. Convulsions, increment in Heart Rate and Asphyxia[56]
The post-mortem injuries were as follows-:
(i)
10 cm x 6 cm bruise on the right per
orbital area with swelling of right eye lid with two concentric nail scratches
abrasions, one on forehead and other on upper eye lid. Bluish in colour;
(ii)
9 cm x 4 cm big contusion, bluish in colour,
on intraorbital area and check on left side;
(iv)
½ cm x ½ cm contusion on the inner side
of lower lip towards left side mid line with respect to left lateral incisor
(lower). Blue in colour;
(v)
8
cm x 7 cm abraded contusion over chin and sub mental area in midline. Bluish in
colour;
(vi)
11 cm x 5 cm multiple small abrasions over
neck and right of upper chest in front 3 cm lateral to steno calvicular joint.
(vii)
10 cm x 4 cm contusion in infra-axillary area
in mid axillary line. Blue in colour.
(viii)
7 cm x 5 cm large purple coloured patch
over dorsum of right hand with multiple needle prick marks.
Medico-legal Importance
·
Abrasions give an
idea about the site of impact and direction of force.
·
They may be the
only external signs of seriousinternal injury.
·
Age of injury can
be determined which helps tocorroborate with alleged time of assault. The
bluish colour of abrasions and bruises means that they were made before 3-4
hrs. This corroborates the findings of ante-mortem.
·
Age of the injury
can be determined by the color changes.
·
Degree of violence
may be determined from their size. The size of the bruises, contusions
mentioned in postmortem report depicts the degree of cruelty and harassment
done with the deceased soon before her death.[57]
Ø It is humbly submitted that where evidence of all eye
witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidences on record
that accused had intention to kill the deceased then the accused should be
convicted.[58]
Having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it is not
possible to uphold the contention that there was no intention to kill.[59]
Ø It is humbly submitted that after death
search, police found the diary which was exhibited and relied for
Domestic violence and dowry demand. The diary belonged to deceased Mrs. Sharda
Goyal in which she was noting every incident minutely.
Ø In case of State of Gujrat v.Raghu @ Raghavbhaivashrambhai and Ors[60]. It was held that any
documentary belonging to the deceased is a valid evidence to prove the
culpability of the accused.
Ø The circumstantial evidences and medical
evidences corroborates the content of diary which mentions about cruelty and
harassment with the deceased.
Ø The Hon’ble High Court acquitted the accused Mr. Dinesh
Goyal from sec. - 302 and all other accused were also acquitted from sec. 302
by Trial court. The Supreme Court held in the case of Rameshwar Das v. State
of Punjab[61]that
where there was sufficient evidence to prove that there was Dowry demand and
death has also taken place within 7 years, the presumption arising under Sec. -
304-B did not become automatically rebutted by the fact that the accused
persons had been acquitted under Sec. 302. There were 7 major injuries on the
deceased which were not self-inflicted.Thus they were homicidal. This section
applies irrespective of the fact whether there is homicide or suicide.[62]
Ø It is humbly submitted that accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal in
his statement under sec. – 313 of Cr. P.C. stated that deceased accidently
consumed some drugs and had asked him to give her salty water but the poison
NUVAN, not any drugs were consumed by the deceased. He also stated that he
called Dr. O.P. Chaudhary but he was called by the police. He came after the
police arrived at spot at around 6:00 a.m.
Ø It is humbly submitted that as held in the case of Wakkar
v. State of Uttar Pradesh[63]
“The principle for basing the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial
evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstances must be clearly
established by the reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so
proves must form the chain of events from which only the irresistible
conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.”
Ø It is humbly submitted that chain of evidences must be
complete with fully established circumstances. It should be of conclusive
nature.[64] From
the above contentions and arguments it is clearly evident that each and every
circumstances leading to dowry death of deceased is clearly established by
reliable medical evidences, evidences of dowry demand and cruelty and by the
statements of prime witnesses. These evidences clearly form a chain of events,
according to which in all probability all the accused persons are liable for
dowry death of deceased Sharda Goyal.
According to
Hon’ble High Court PW-8 Dr. O.P.
Chaudhary and PW-9 Dr. Piyush Kapila could not rule out the possibility of the
victim committing suicide. It is humbly submitted that it is not duty of doctor
to opinion that whether the act was murder or suicide? His duty is to give
exact report regarding about cause of death and injuries. The court shall rely
on other evidences to reach on conclusion that whether an act was a homicide or
suicide. It is humbly submitted that no suicide letter was found.
It is humbly submitted that in case of Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. The Steel Authority of India[65],
It was held that- duty of the expert
is to depose and not to decide. The only function of the expert is to furnish
the data with the necessary scientific criteria so as to enable the judge to
come to an independent conclusion. Data and analysis are provided by the
expert. Conclusions are drawn by the Court. In certain cases expert may give
his opinion. But such an opinion is not binding on the Court. In other words,
Court does not become functus officio to draw the conclusion if the expert has
also given the opinion or the finding.
In the case of T.P. Divetia v. State[66]
it was held that-In case of conflict
of opinion of two doctors, the opinion of the doctor who actually examined the
injury and held the post-mortem examination must be preferred.According to the
S.C. guidelines on medical Negligence- Difference in opinion cannot be cited as
negligence.
The Hon’ble High Court contended in its decision
that there was many differences in ante-mortem and post –mortem findings, the
no. of injuries had increased from 2 to 6 in the post-mortem report. This was
because while ante-mortem examination, the deceased was in serious condition,
needed to be referred to hospital immediately so the complete examination was
not possible.
As held in
case of The State of Maharashtra and ors. v. Rajkumar and
ors.[67]- There is no reason to discard the
medical evidence corroborating the statement of the eye-witnesses i.e. direct
evidence.
In the case of Sanjay
Kumar Kesharvani v. State of Chattisgarh[68]held
that -There is consistency in the evidence of witness to prove that appellant
has committed cruelty and torture upon deceased in connection with dowry
demand.
In the case of MafabhaiNagarbhaiRaval
v. State[69]
held that-Unless there is something inherently defective in medical report, the
court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the doctor.
As held in case of A.M. Kunnikoya v. State of Kerla[70] “It
is well settled that if evidence of eye –witness are held to be reliable and
inspires confidence then accused cannot be acquitted solely on the ground that
some superficial injuries found on a person, had not been explained by
prosecution”
As held in case of Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh[71]
“mere variance of prosecution story with the medical evidences, in all
cases, should not lead to conclusioninevitablyto reject prosecution story.”
Thus, both ante-mortem and post-mortem findings are reliable and between the
two, post-mortem findings are more conclusive in nature. The difference between
the two cannot be ground for a reasonable doubt for non-conviction of accused
persons.
2.1.4. The act done by all accused persons was in
furtherance of common intention.
Sec.-34 of I.P.C. Acts done by several
persons in furtherance of common intention.-When a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in same manner as if it were done by him alone.[72]
As held in case of Ashok Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan[73]
“In dowry deaths motive for murder exists and what is required of courts is
to examine as to who translated it into action as motive viz. individual or
family.”
It is humbly submitted that this case is based on the circumstantial
evidences and their relation with the medical evidences. The three accused Mr.
Dinesh, Mr. Suresh and Mrs. Shalini in collusion forcibly administered the
poison to kill her, there presence at the spot and also the act of omission of duty of care and proper medical treatment
to the deceased is testified by the statement of PW-2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. The
evidences of dowry demand and cruelty along with the contents of hand written
diary of deceased proves that all the three accused did all the guilty acts
with her in furtherance of common intension. As in this case the
evidence of eye-witness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was
truthful, reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence, the common
intention of accused persons to commit murder of deceased is also proved.[74]
If some act is done by the accused in furtherance of common intention of
his co-accused, he is equally liable as his co-accused.[75]
In the case of ShreekantiahRamayya[76]
Supreme Court held that-It is the essence of this section that the person must
be physically present at the actual commission of the crime and must actually
participate in the commission of the offence in some way or other at the time
crime is actually being committed.
In the caseState of Punjab v. Surjit Singh[77],
Supreme Court held that-Even though Injury inflicted by Accused No.1 and not by
Accused No.2, the latter would be as guiltier of the offence of murder as the
former because of the common intention forged between the two.
Thus it is humbly submitted that Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr.
Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal were present at
the crime scene and all of them had participated in the commission of the crime.
Thus they shall be liable for offences
under alleged sections of I.P.C. read with Sec.-34 of I.P.C.
2.1.5. All the accused person are liable for
offence under Sec. – 201 of I.P.C.
Sec. 201- Causing disappearance of evidence
of offence, or giving false information to screen offender- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe
that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of
offence to disappear, with the intention of screening offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence
which he knows or believes to be false is liable for causing disappearance of
evidence, or giving false information to screen offender.[78]
It is humbly submitted that Section 222 of
Cr.P.C. clothes the court with power to convict a person of an offence which is
minor in comparison to one for which he is charged and tried.[79]
All the accuse persons are liable of offences u/s 304B, 498A r/w/ Sec. 34 of
I.P.C.
The contentions which also make them liable
for offence under section-201 of I.P.C. are as follows-
1.
Disappearance of bottle of poison “NUVAN” –It is humbly submitted that the accused had disappeared
the evidences with the intention of screening them from legal punishment. The
accused Dinesh Goyal in his Statement under Sec 313 of Cr.P.C did not deny the
factum that the deceased had died due to poison and it is also proved by the
PW-1 the Shopkeeper that the poison had been purchased by Dinesh Goyal under
the Trade name NUVAN. But no such bottle of poison or any utensil by which the
poison was given to the deceased had been discovered from the crime spot.
2.
Disappearance
of Clothes-It
is humbly submitted that the clothes of the deceased had not been produced. The
clothes of the deceased is an important evidence as it is mentioned in the
facts that On the day of the incident the clothes of the deceased were drenched
and water was splashed on the bed as well as on the floor of the room.
Therefore, it can be inferred that if the clothes were found then it will be
helpful to find the sample of poison which can be found on the clothes of the
deceased when the poison was forcefully given to her by her mother-in-law.
3. Fingerprints- It is humbly
submitted that as the bottle of poison and the clothes of the deceased was not
found. Thus, the fingerprints cannot be found on the bottle of poison or on the
clothes of the deceased which would be helpful in proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubts. In case of Jaspal v. State[80],
it was held that-The Finger Print
Examination is conclusive proof as it is an exact science.
It is humbly submitted that all the evidences
mentioned above were direct evidence in the case, their forensic examination
report would have made the case stronger against the accused persons, the
report of fingerprint examination of bottle and utensil would have made the
case more clear so in order to save themselves from conviction, the accused
persons caused disappearance of evidences. Thus they shall be liable under sec.
-201 of I.P.C.
2.1.6. All the accused person are liable for
murder of deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal u/s 302 r/w Sec. – 34 of I.P.C.
Sec.300 of I.P.C defines murder as:
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death, or—
Secondly — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as theOffender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused, or—
Thirdly — If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly — if the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.[81]
Sec. 302 of I.P.C: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine.[82]
It is humbly submitted that in Rajibir v.
State of Haryana[83]a
two judge bench of Supreme Court directed all the trial court to ordinarily add
Section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so that death sentences can be
imposed on such heinous and barbaric crime against the women but in the case of
Jasvinder Saini &Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)[84]
the Supreme Court clarified that the direction in Rajibir’s case was not meant
to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of evidences
available in the case. All that this court meant to say was that in a case
where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Sec. 302 can also
be framed if the evidence otherwise permits.
It is humbly submitted that mensrea i.e. evil
intention for murder of deceased was present. It is clearly evident from the
fact that the request of servants and relatives of deceased to take her to the
hospital was denied. Having regard to
the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it is not possible to uphold
the contention that there was no intention to kill.[85]
The actusreus in this case was
performed by the accused in two parts- (i) by committing an act of
administering the poison to the deceased. (ii) By act of omission of duty of
care and proper medical treatment to the deceased. The person committing the
act knew that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
The fact that death of deceased was an
unnatural death, there was cruelty and harassment with deceased soon before
death in connection with demand of dowry makes the accused persons liable under
Sec. - 304B and 498A.
The evidence in this case which permits the
conviction of accused under Sec. 302 is the Dying Declaration of
deceased.
It is humbly submitted that according to PW-5
Mr. Anil Kumar & PW-6 Mr. Shiv Kumar, relatives of the deceased, when they
asked the deceased that what has happened, she raised her hands towards
accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal. The deceased was not in
condition to speak but she was in fit medical condition to respond to the
questions of PW-5 & 6 in form of signs.
The Hon’ble High Court did not
admitted the dying declaration of deceased but the contentions which make it an
admissible evidence are mentioned below.
Ø Sec32 of Indian Evidence
Act
Statements, written or verbal, of
relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or cannot be founded, or who has
become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured
without any amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the
case, appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in –
1.
When
the Statement is made by the person as to the cause of his death, or as to any
circumstances of the transactions which resulted in his death, in cases in
which the cause of that persons death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the
person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under
expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of proceeding in which the
cause of death comes into question.
As held in case of WaikhomYaima Singh v. State
of Manipur[86]there can be no dispute
that dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, however, such a
dying declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and
truthful. The facts and precedents which fulfills the requirements of this case
are as follows-
The act of the deceased of pointing finger towards
the accused in response to question asked by PW-6 & 7 is a Verbal Statement
and is admissible under this section because of the following-:
·
A dying
declaration may be oral or written. It may be proved by the evidence of witness
who heard it made. If the dying person is unable to speak, but is able to make
signs in answers to questions put to him, this can be recorded and it is
considered as ‘verbal statement’.
·
In the case
of Queen-Empress v. Abdullah[87]it was held that ‘verbal’
means by words. It is not necessary that words should be spoken. If the
significance of the signs made by a deceased person in response to the
questions put to her shortly before her death is established satisfactorily to
the mind of the court, then such questions, taken with her assent or dissent to
them, clearly proved, constitute a verbal statement as to the cause of her
death.
·
In case of sup. Pandian K. Nadar v. State of
Maharashtra[88]it was held that the questions and
signs taken together might properly be regarded as ‘verbal statement’ made by
person as to the cause of her death within the meaning of this section, and
were, therefore, admissible under this section.
·
In case ofMeesalaRamakishan v. State of A.P.[89]
it was held that-A dying declaration made
by nods, or gestures or by sign language has been held to be admissible and
also on the facts of the particular case, to be reliable.
Dying
Declaration made to relatives is admissible.
·
In case of Bhoora Singh v. State of U.P[90]it
was held that-In case of dowry death it
was held that Dying Declaration could not be rejected merely on the ground that
it was made to the relatives of the deceased.
·
In the
case of Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh[91]it
has been held regarding “interested witness” that the relationship is not the
factor to affect the credibility of witness.Thus PW-5 Mr. Anil Kumar & PW-6
Mr. Shiv Kumar, relatives of the deceased are credible witnesses in this case.
·
It was
held by Supreme Court that noting made by the deceased in diary about cause of
her death would have some evidentiary value as a Dying Declaration.[92]
Thus the contents of diary of deceased which leads to inference that she
had danger of life by her in-laws have evidentiary value as dying declaration.
·
It is
humbly submitted that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in
view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made.[93] In this case the gesture of deceased
considered along with circumstances of the scene in which it was made, it shall
be considered and be admissible as a Dying declaration. Merely because a dying
declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be
rejected[94]
and even it is brief, it is not to be discarded.[95]
·
As held
in case of Prakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh[96]that
where deceased victim knew the assailants and gave their names to family member
at first opportunity, her dying declaration can be relied upon.
As held in case of S.D. Soni. v. State of
Gujrat[97]that
in case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it
must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the
guilt of accused.
There is a proof beyond all reasonable
doubts
Doubt
would be called reasonable if they are free from zest for abstract speculation.
Law cannot afford any favorite than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it
should be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial
as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the
lack of it as a post to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not
imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason
and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case[98].
Also law does not require conclusive proof, but only proof beyond reasonable
doubt[99].
It
is humbly submitted that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all
reasonable doubt. All the direct and circumstantial evidences – Diary of the
deceased, statement of prime witnesses, medical evidences and dying declaration
by the deceased prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
Thus,
it is humbly submitted that in this case on the basis of Dying Declaration of
deceased, other circumstantial evidences, medical evidences, statement of PW’s
it is true that the chain of events proved by the prosecution show that within
all human probability the offence have been committed by the accused persons
with the motive suggested by the prosecution, which induced the accused persons
to follow a particular path.[100]
There is no second view possible in this case and thus all the accused persons
shall be convicted u/s 302 of I.P.C.
According to Hon’ble
JusticeMarkandeyKatju, Judge, Supreme
Court of India
“In my opinion dowry death is worse than
murder but surprisingly there is no death penalty for it whereas death penalty
can be given for murder. In my opinion the time has come when law be amended
and death sentence should be permitted in case of dowry deaths”
Thus, it is most humbly and
respectfully prayed that Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini
Goyal shall be awarded death sentence for such a heinous and barbaric offence.
PRAYER
Wherefore,
in the light of the fact used, issues raised, arguments advanced and the
authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The
Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants State of Rajasthan and Mr.
Vikram Gupta under Art. 136 of constitution of India is maintainable in Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
2.
The accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh
Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liable for offences punishable u/s 302, 304B,
498A, 201 r/w Sec.-34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3 of Protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
According
to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Hon’ble Court to
adjudge the above prayers, and grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to grant and is deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.
All
of which respectfully submitted
For
the act of Kindness, the Appellants shall Duty Bound Forever
All
of which is most humbly prayed
Counsels
for the Appellants
[1]V.N.Shukla, Constitution of
India. 12th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Pg. No. 533
[2] Moot Proposition, Pg. No. 7,
Line 2,3
[3] Moot Proposition, Pg. No. 7,
Line 3,4
[4]Line 33, pg. 7, Moot proposition
[5]Line 39, pg. 7, Moot proposition
[6]Indira Kaur and Ors. Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor : (1988 )2SCC 488
[7]Anvaruddin v. Shakoor, AIR 1990 SC 1242.
[8]Gauri Shankar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 709
[9] Emporium v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Naina : AIR1985SC207
[10]P.S.R. SadhananthamVs. Arunachalam and Anr. : AIR 1980 SC 856
[11]Sham Sunder v. Puran : (1990) 4 SCC 731
[12]Pritam Singh v. State : AIR 1950 SC 169
[13]Sanwat Singh V. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1961 SC 715
[14]Radha Mohan Singh @ LalSaheb v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 951.
[15]Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar and Ors : MANU/SC/0403/2016
[16]State of Maharashtra v. Digambar,
(1995)4 SCC 683
[17]RamakantRai vs. MadanRai and Ors.
: AIR 2004 SC 77
[18] Ashok Nagar Welfare Association
v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 335
[19]Dhakeswari cotton Mills Ltd. V.
C.I.T : AIR1965SC65
[20]Pritam Singh V. State :
AIR1950SC169
[21]Union Carbide Corporation v.
Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584
[22]Rafiq v. State of U.P. , (1980) 4
SCC 262
[23]Narpat Singh v. Jaipur
Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
[24] Delhi Judicial Service
Association v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1991 SC 2176.
[25] Jagatjit Distilling Ltd. V.
State of Punjab, (1974) 1 ILR 189(Punjab & Haryana).
[26]Nageshwar V. State of Maharashtra
: AIR 1973 SC 165
[27]
State of U.P. V. Hari Ram : AIR 1983 SC 1081
[28]
State of U.P. V. Anil Singh : AIR 1988 SC 1998
[29]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg. 517-518
[30]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg. 589
[31]Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.
[32]Dowry prohibition Act, 1961,
Sec-2.[32]
Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition
[33] Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary,
8th Edition
[34]Moot Proposition, para 3, line
no. 9.
[35]Moot Proposition, para 3, line
no. 9.
[36]Moot Proposition, para 6.
[37]Moot Proposition, para 7.
[38]Dhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 Cr LJ 3156(All)
[39]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg. 589
[40]Moot Proposition, para 7.
[41]Moot Proposition, para 8
[42]State of Karnataka v. Balappa,
1999 CrLJ 3064(Kant.)
[43]Moot Proposition, para 8
[44]Rita v. Brij Kishore, AIR 1984 Del 291.
[45]P
Bikshapathi v. State of A.P.
[46]BirendarPoddar v State of Bihar, (2011) 6 SCC 350.
[47]Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 Cri LJ 1684.
[48]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg. 655
[49]Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.
[50]Kailash v. State of M.P. AIR 2007
SC 107
[52]Butan Sao v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 3122 (Pat).
[54]Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 107
[55]Gautam Biswas, Riview of forensic
Medicine & Toxilogy, 2nd edition, Pg. 170
[56]Gautam Biswas, Riview of forensic
Medicine & Toxilogy, 2nd edition, Pg. 138
[57]Gautam Biswas, Riview of forensic
Medicine & Toxilogy, 2nd edition, Pg. 171
[58]Robba Ramanna Dora v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118(AP)
[59]Prabhu v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373.
[61]Rameshwar
Das v. State of Punjab, (2007) 14 SCC 696.
[62]Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh, AIR
2007 SC 2045.
[63]Wakkar v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 306.
[64]Arvind v. State, 1999 (4) SCC
4861.
[66]T.P. Divetia v. State, AIR 1992 SC 2193
[67]The State of Maharashtra and ors. v. Rajkumar
and ors.
[69]MafabhaiNagarbhaiRaval v. State, AIR 1992 SC 2186.
[70]A.M. Kunnikoya v. State of Kerla, (1993) 1 Crimes 1192
(SC)
[71]Mohan Singh
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 883.
[72]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg.411
[73]Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 Crimes 116 (SC).
[74]Ratan Debnath v. State of
Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237(Gau.)
[75]State of Punjab v. Fauja Singh,
(1997) 3 Crimes170 (P&H)
[78]Criminal Manual, Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd.,2013, The Indian Penal Code, pg. 470
[79]Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2007 SC 3050.
[80]Jaspal
v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1708.
[81]
Criminal Manual, Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt. Ltd., 2013, The Indian
Penal Code, pg. 507
[85]Prabhu v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373.
[86]WaikhomYaima
Singh v. State of Manipur, 2011 Cr LJ 2673.
[87]Queen-Empress
v. Abdullah, (1885) 7 All. 385 FB.
[88]sup. Pandian K. Nadar v. State of
Maharashtra, 1993 Cr LJ 3883 (Bom), the deceased indicated the accused through
gestures, relied upon.
[90]Bhoora Singh v. State of U.P. ,
1992 Cr LJ 2294.
[91]Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.
[92]Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chattisgarh, 2001 Cr LJ 4724 (SC).
[93]Tarachand v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 130.
[94] State of Maharashtra v.
KrishnamurthiLaxamipati Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617.
[95]Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi),
(2010) 9 SCC 1
[96] Prakash v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 65.
[98] State of MP v. Dharkola 2005
CriLj 102 (SC)
[99] State of Kerala v. Bahuleyan AIR
1987 SC 482
[100]Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab,
1993(1) Crimes 616 (SC)
No comments:
Post a Comment