Prosecution Appeal in Dowry Death Case

APPEAL ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Page 1
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF
INDIA
Appeal filed on behalf of the prosecution
IN THE MATTER OF
UNION OF INDIA………………………..PROSECUTION
VERSUS
AJAY GUPTA & Ors…………………………….DEFENCE
Submitted by-
Gagan deep goyal
Sem.-9th
Sec.-A
Roll no.1507001043

INDEX
1) LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
2) INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3) TABLE OF STATUTE
I. WEBSITES
II. BOOKS
III. TABLE OF CASES
4) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5) STATEMENTS OF FACTS
6) ISSUES
7) ARGUMENTS
8) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9) PRAYER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. H.C High Court
2. S.C. Supreme Court
3 .A.I.R All India Reports
4. P&H Punjab and Haryana
5. Hon’ble Honourable
6. vs. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8.Vol. Volume
9.SCC Supreme Court Cases
10.Sec. Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF STATUTES
1) INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
WEBSITES
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2.https://www.lawfinderlive.com
3. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/
BOOKS
1. The Indian Penal Code Act No. 45 of 1860 By Prof. T. Bhattacharyya 18 th Edition
2. The Indian Penal Code Act No.45 of 1860 By. Prof . Surya Narayan Mishra 20 th Edition.

TABLE OF CASES
1. Mustafa Shahbodal Sheikh V. State Of Maharashtra
2. Ram Badan Sharma V.State Of Bihar
3. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. V. Union Of India
4. Collector Of Custom V. Nathella Sampathu Chetty
5. C. Veerudu V. State Of A.P
6. Dev Parkash V. State Of U.P
7. Nandu Rastogi V. State Of Bihar
8. Suresh V. State Of U.P
9. Rajesh Kumar V.Dharamvir
10. State Of Assam V. Abinash Dutta
11. Prakash DharwalKhirnar V. State Of Maharashtra

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant humbly submits this memorandum for the petition before this learned Court under the
Article 136 of Constitution of India.
136.(1) 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.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or
made by any Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That a girl namely (26 years old) was daughter of Shri. Bansi lal who was a
social worker. She belonged to middle –class family.
2. That She was very good looking and at the same time was very good in studies.
3. That she was studying MBA in a very well renowned private university and it
was there she met rakesh (her classmate).
4. That they were in relationship in 1 year and after decided to get married.
5. That both of them discussed it with their parents.
6. That the parents of rakesh agreed but the father of aarti initially refused and
later on agreed. However he stated that he would be performing marriage in a
simple way with very little dowry.
7. That on the other side, Shri Ajay Gupta (father of rakesh) who was a
multimillionaire businessman told that as per the custom and convention in
their family, dowry of at least Rs.30 Lakh be given, to which Shri Bansi lal
flatly refused.
8. That on the haring this Shri Ajay Gupta also refused but under the pressure of
his son and wife he agreed.
9. That the wedding was performed on 25.5.2019 in simple way with very little
dowry as desired by Shri Bansi lal.
10.That on 26.5.2019, wedding reception was arranged by Shri Ajay Gupta which
was grand and lavish.
11.That the wedding of Aarti and rakesh was talk of the town. After the marriage
Aarti didn’t received proper treatment from her in –laws.
12.That she never conveyed this to her parents.
13.That She maintain a dairy about all the incident that happened in her life.
Meanwhile, Shri Ajay Gupta paid Rs.10 Lakh to his boxer (Sunny) through
account pay cheque.
14.That after few days Sunny along with Mohanlal (servant of Shri Ajay Gupta
aged about 15 years) found Aarti on lonely road.

15.That kidnapped her and murdered her. Her body was disposed off on one side
of the road in mutilated condition.
16.That Where Aarti didn’t reached home by 6p.m. Shri Ajay Gupta called Shri
Bansi lal and informed him that she is missing since morning.
17.That F.I.R was logged by father in the nearby police station. Police made
search and detectives were also engaged by rakesh.
18.That the detective found the dead body of Aarti.
19.That Case was registered U/S 302 R/W 201 of ipc against Sunny. Post
mortem was conducted.
20.That during the investigation above mentioned dairy was also seized. Sunny
confessed the crime before the police and also disclosedthe name of Mohanlal.
21.That he stated to the police that he committed murder under the direction of
Ajay Gupta.
22.That further, Shri Bansi lal also told police regarding demand of dowry made
by the father-in-law of Aarti before marriage.
23. That So on the basis of these facts and the on basis of the dairy which was
maintained by Aarti charges U/S 304-B R/W34 and Sec. 498 A of ipc were
framed against Shri Ajay Gupta and his wife.
24.Judgement of trial Court - In the trial Court changes were framed against all
the accused regarding the offences attributed to them and evidence was led by
the prosecution before the hon’ble trial Court regarding alleged offences. The
Hon’ble trial Court after appreciating all the evidence produced and led before
it acquitted Ajay Gupta and his wife (Sheetal Gupta) from all the charges (Sec.
304 B R/W Sec.34 and Sec.498 A). Whereas the Hon’ble Court convicted
Sunny for 5 year along with fine of Rs.1000 and Mohanlal was sent to juvenile
Court .
25. Judgement of High Court - The Hon’bleHigh Court held Ajay Gupta and his
wife liable U/S 304 B R/W 34 & SEC.498-A of ipc and rigorous imprisonment
for 7 year and fine of Rs. 50,000 was imposed. Sunny was made liable U/S 302

R/W 201 of ipc and was punished with life imprisonment. Mohanlal was
awarded simple imprisonment for 5 years. Now Shri Bansi lal and all accused
filed an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court all the appeals have been
consolidated and are fixed for final hearing.

GROUND OF APPEAL
1. Whether the accused (Ajay Gupta and his wife Sheetal Gupta) can be liable
under section304-B read with Sec. 34 and Sec.498-A of IPC?
2. Whether the accused (Sunny) can be liable under section302 read with section
201 of IPC?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the accused (Ajay Gupta and his wife Sheetal Gupta) can be
liable under section304-B read withSec. 34 and Sec.498-A of IPC?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
accused(Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta ) must be convicted under section 304-
B read with Sec.34 and Sec. 498-A of IPC, 1860 as they has common intention
between the accused and they organized very grand and lavish reception party.
They do not need any dowry but still they demand downy for harassing the
deceased and make feel middle class to deceased.
2. Whether the accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) can be liable under section
302 read withsection 201 of IPC?
It is mostly humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
accused must be convicted under section302 read with sec.201 of IPC,1860 as
they has commit crime under the direction and order of accused (Ajay Gupta
and Sheetal Gupta). The accused (Sunny and Mohan lal commit murder of
deceased because of Rs.10 Lakh given by accused (Ajay Gupta and Sheetal
Gupta).

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
1. Whether the accused (Ajay Gupta and his wife Sheetal Gupta) can be
liable under section304-B read withSec. 34 and Sec.498-A of IPC?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SUPREME Court that the
accused(Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta ) must be convicted under section 304-
B read with Sec.34 and Sec. 498-A of IPC, 1860 as they has common intention
to kill deceased and behaviour of accused is not good.
According to the facts, the accused Shri Ajay Gupta (father of rakesh) who
was a multimillionaire businessman told that as per the custom and convention
in their family, dowry of at least Rs.30 Lakh is given, to which Shri Bansi lal
flatly refused. On the haring this Shri Ajay Gupta also refused but under the
pressure of his son then accused agreed for marriage. After the marriage
deceased didn’t received proper treatment from her in- laws. The deceased
never conveyed this to her parents. But she maintains a dairy about the entire
incident that happened in her life. The accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) stated to
the police that he committed murder under the direction of Ajay Gupta
.Further, Shri Bansi lal also told police regarding demand of dowry made by
the father-in-law of Aarti before marriage.
304B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns
or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be
called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death

Explanation.—for the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry “shall have the
same meaning as in section2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961)
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.
In Mustafa shahbodal sheikh v. state of Maharashtra,1 deceased died in
matrimonial home within 7 months of marriage. Accused husband and his
parents alone were in house at time fine of incident. There was a clear evidence
of grandfather and parents of deceased that 5 days prior to death she narrated
torture meted out of her on account of dowry demand. Condition of soon before
death is satisfied as death was just 7 months after marriage. It was explained in
this case that soon before her death mean interval between cruelty and death
should not be much. It was pleaded that accused was young and only earning
member of family and so sentence should be reduced but it was held that it
cannot be a ground to reduced sentence
Below minimum prescribe period. In this case there was live and proximate
link between cruelty and death. Hence there was no ground to reduced
sentenced below 7 years which is the minimum prescribed and so convicted of
accused appellant was held proper.
In ram badan Sharma v. state of Bihar2, the deceased was killed by
administering poison due to non –fulfilment of president demand of dowry
which was being made right from the time of marriage till her death. She was
being harassed, humiliated and beaten by her husband and in-laws. Even her
relatives were not allowed to meet her at matrimonial home. On the fateful
days poison was given to deceased in Prasad. The accused persons secretlyand
clandestinely cremated her without even intimating parents of deceased who
were living only a few miles away from their village. The accused person did
1 (2012) IV Cri.L.j. 4763 (S.C)
2 2006 Cri.L.j. 4070 (S.C.)

not even take to hospital nor any kind of medical treatment was given to the
deceased. Since the death occurred within seven years of marriage, the
conviction of the accused person under section 304-B for the offence of dowry
death was held to be proper. In addition to that a case has also clearly been
made out for offence under section 201 of I.P.C. Therefore the conviction of
accused person under section201 of I.P.C was also held to be justified.
In Chhajju vs. State Of Haryana and Ors.
In this case in SLP, the sentence of imprisonment for life passed upon him
was upheld.
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—for the purposes of this section, “cruelty “means—
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.
In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India3 a Bench of nine Judges
observed that mere possibility of abuse of a provision by those in charge of
administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision procedurally or
substantively unreasonable.
3 1997 (5) SCC 536

In Collector ofCustoms v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty 4, this Court
observed: (SCR p. 825) “The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid
does not impart to it any element of invalidity."
In C. Veerudu v. State of A.P.5that the conduct referredto in this section
should be much more than matrimonial cruelty and should be accompanied
with some mens rea before it could be considered as sufficient for conviction in
that section.
In Dev Prasad v. State of U.P6. , it was observed that while an ordinary
murder can be punished by a death sentence under Section 302 IPC, a dowry
death, which is a much worse offence has a maximum punishment of life
imprisonment. An ordinary murder is committed in a fit of rage or for property,
but a dowry death is not just an ordinary crime, it is a social crime
In the present case the hon’ble High Court gave the rigorous imprisonment for
7 year and Rs. 50,000 fine. This is minimum punishment given by the Court. In
the above mention section maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—
Whena criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
asif it were done by him alone.]
In Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar7, To attract Section 34 IPC it is not
necessary that each one of the accused must assault the deceased. It is enough
if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in
4 1962 (3) SCR 786
5 1989 Cri LJ NOC 52
6 2002 Cr.LJ 4291
7 2002 Cri.L.j. 4698 (S.C.)

furtherance thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts,
similar or diverse. The facts of this case are eloquent and the role played by Bal
Mukund Rastogi of preventing the prosecution witnesses from going to the
rescue of the deceased was the role played by him with a view to achieve the
ultimate objective of killing Shankar Rastogi. We, therefore, entertain no doubt
that all the five persons who came to the shop of the informant had a common
intention to commit the murder of Shankar Rastogi and they acted pursuant to a
pre arranged plan. The facts clearly are consistent only with the hypothesis of
their acting in furtherance of a common intention. They have, therefore, rightly
been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
In Suresh vs. State of U.P. (Supra) wherein it has been observed that to attract
Section 34 IPC two postulates are indispensable: (1) the criminal act
(consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but
more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively
resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in
furtherance of the common intention of all such persons. He also drew our
attention to the discussion in the judgment about the difference between a
"common intention" and "similar intention". It has been observed by this Court
that to attract the applicability of Section 34 of the Code the prosecution is
under an obligation to establish that there existed a common intention which
requires a pre-arranged plan, because before a man can be vicariously
convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in
furtherance of the common intention. The Court observed: "Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code recognizes the principle of vicarious liability in criminal
jurisprudence. It makes a person liable for action of an offence not committed
by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. It is
a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The section gives
statutory recognition to the commonsense principle that if more than two
persons intentionally do a thing jointly; it is just the same as if each of them
had done it individually. There is no gainsaying that a common intention

presupposes prior concert, which requires a prearranged plan of the accused
participating in an offence. Such preconcert or preplanning may develop on the
spot or during the course of commission of the offence but the crucial test is
that such plan must precede the act constituting an offence. Common intention
can be formed previously or in the course of occurrence and on the spur of the
moment.
It is submitted that both the accused (Ajay Gupta and his wife Sheetal Gupta)
did not agree for marriage of Rakesh as they were demanding the dowry of
Rs.30 Lakh from deceased father. But due to pressure given by Rakesh they
have to agree on marriage without the dowry. But after the marriage the
accused misbehaved with the deceased. She never told to anyone about the
incidents but had the habit of maintaining the dairy. The accused belongs to
well to do family and were not in the need for money but were demanding
dowry just to harass the deceased. Both the accused had the common intention
to kill deceased. They made their plan and heir Sunny and Mohan lal for killing
her. They gave Rs.10 Lakh (through cheque) to Sunny and Mohan lal to kill
deceased. This evidence is clear enough to show the intention of accused. Both
the accuse namely Sunny and Mohan lal confessed that they committed the
murder under the direction of Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta. The diary of
deceased which was recovered during the investigation has a clear mention of
all the incidents (maltreatment by in laws) committed against her. The
deceased father in the statement given to the police said that Ajay Gupta and
Sheetal Gupta were demanding the dowry of Rs 30 Lakh before the marriage.

2. Whether the accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) can be liable under section
302 read withsection 201 of IPC?
It is mostly humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SUPREME Court that the
accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) must be convicted under section 302 read with
sec.201 of IPC,1860 as they has commit crime under the direction and order of
accused (Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta).
According to the facts, Shri Ajay Gupta paid Rs.10 Lakh to his boxer (Sunny)
through account pay cheque. After few days Sunny along with Mohan lal
(servant of Shri Ajay Gupta aged about 15 years) found Aarti on lonely road.
Kidnapped her and murdered her. Her body was disposed off on one side of the
road in mutilated condition.
300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder,
Firstly -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 the
offender 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

302. Punishment for murder.—whoever commits murder shall be punished
with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
Similarly in case of Rajesh Kumar vs. Dharamvir, it was held by the Hon’ble
Court that all the conditions of murder were satisfied and the accused was
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.
Also, in the case of State of Assam vs. Abinash Dutta, the Court stated that a
vindictive or malicious act by a person implies that the act has been done with
the motive of taking revenge and this was happened in the case in hand.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screenoffender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital
offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been
committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is
punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may
extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if
punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a
term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the
imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

In prakash dharwal khairnar v. state of Maharashtra8, there was a dispute
between two brothers with regard to partition of agricultural land and deceased
was evading in giving share of the land to the accused. The accused was
alleged to have fired gunshots in the house of the deceased and caused deaths
of all family members of deceased, his brother including his mother. It was
alleged that the son, co –accused had seen his father, main accused committing
multiple murder and he destroyed evidence relating to those murder by
throwing articles from bridge on two separate occasions. Circumstantial
evidence did not establish that there was any common intention or conspiracy
between father and son to commit the offence. Thus section302 of I.P.C. There
was sufficient evidence to show that the son destroyed the evidence relating to
murder with primary object of saving his father. Therefore, he was held liable
to be convicted for offence under section201 of I.P.C.
It is submitted that both the accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) on the receival of
Rs10 Lakh from Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta and commit the crime under
their direction. When they found the deceased lonely on road then they
kidnapped and kill the deceased. After the killing they dispose off the body in
one side of road.
In the present case Hon’ble High Court give life imprisonment. I requested to
the Court to give rigorous life imprisonment and mention that thing life
imprisonment till the natural death of the accused.
8 2002Cri. L.j.928 (S.C.)

Prayer
Therefore, in light of the issued raised, argument advance and authorities cited. The
counsel for the prosecution most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to
adjudge, hold and declare:-
The counsel submit to Hon’ble Court that Hon’ble High Court convicted
the accused (Ajay Gupta and Sheetal Gupta) for 7 year and fine of Rs 50,000 and the
accused (Sunny and Mohan lal) for life imprisonment and 5 year respectively. And
the counsel prays to enhance the punishment and give justice to decease
And pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.
(SD/-)
Counsel on behalf of prosecution
Date:
Place:

Prosecution Appeal in Dowry Death Case

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Prosecution Appeal in Dowry Death Case

Similar to Prosecution Appeal in Dowry Death Case (20)

More from gagan deep

More from gagan deep (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Prosecution Appeal in Dowry Death Case