6TH FYLC – RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Before
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

Criminal Appeal No. …../2015

1. State of Rajasthan................................................................................APPELLANTS

v.

1. Dinesh Goyal
2. Suresh Goyal
3. Shalini Goyal.........................................................................................RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................................. 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 1
TABLE OF CASES ........................................................................................................................................ 3
BOOK REFERRED ....................................................................................................................................... 6
WEB SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 7
LEGAL DICTIONARIES .............................................................................................................................. 7
STATUTES REFFERRED ............................................................................................................................ 7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................. 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 9
ISSUE RAISED ................................................................................................................................................. 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 12
ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE .......................................................................................................................... 14
ISSUE I: THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 AGAINST THE
ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE. ............................................... 14
1.1. JURISDICTION OF SC UNDER ARTICLE 136 CAN ALWAYS BE INVOKED WHEN A
QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES. ...................................... 14
1.2. THE ISSUES INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND THE HC ERRED IN
DECIDING THE APPEAL. ..................................................................................................................... 15
ISSUE II:- THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MAKING DOWRY DEMANDS
FROM THE DECEASED AND HER FAMILY. ....................................................................................... 17
ISSUE-III:- THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER S.498A OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. .................................................................................................................... 19
ISSUE IV:- THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER § 304B OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. .................................................................................................................... 20
PRAYER............................................................................................................................................................ 25

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 2

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
¶ Paragraph

§ Section

AIR All India Reporter

ACIT Assistant Commissioner of income Tax
All Allahabad
Anr. Another
AP Andhra Pradesh
APLJ Andhra Pradesh Law Journal
Art. Article
Ass. Assam
Bom Bombay

CA Chartered Accountant
Cal Calcutta
CCR Current Criminal Report
CIT Commissioner of Income Tax
Cr. Criminal
Cr LJ Criminal Law Journal
Cri Criminal
CTR Current Tax Reporter
Del Delhi
DLT Delhi Law Times
DMC Divorce and Matrimonial Cases

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 1

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

DP Act The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Guj Gujarat
GLH Gujarat Law Herald

GLR Gujarat Law Reporter

HP Himachal Pradesh
ILR Indian Law Reports
J.T Judgment Today
JCIT Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Kar Karnataka
Ker Kerala
Ltd. Limited
L.W.(Cr.) Law Weekly (Criminal)
Mad Madras
MP Madhya Pradesh
NTN Native Title News
Ors. Others
P. Private
Pat Patna
Punj&Har Punjab and Haryana
Raj Rajasthan
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
STA State Transport Authority
STC Sales tax cases
STR Service Tax Review

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 2

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

Supl. Supplementary
UOI Union of India
UPTC Uttar Pradesh Tax Cases
v. Versus
VCT Venture Capital Trusts
Vol. Volume

TABLE OF CASES
Name of Cases

(1) Crimes 1180 (SC)

1992
Appu v. State AIR 1971, Mad 194

Arun Garg v. State of Punjab $ Anor 8 SCC 251

2004
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2839 SC 2010;

Bachni Devi $ Ane v state of Haryana, AIR 1098 SC 2011

Bachni Devi and Anr v. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home AIR 1098 SC 2011
Department,
Bakshish Ram and Anr v. State of Punjab, AIR 1484 SC 2013.

Balakrishna v Rmaswami (1965) AIR 195 (SC).

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 213 SC 2009

Baljeet Singh and Anr v. State of Haryana, AIR 1714 SC 2004.

Balwant Singh v. Pratap Singh, 9 SCC 352 (2000).

Bhagat v. Bhagat, AIR 710 SC 1994

Bhairon Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri. LJ 3738 (SC) 2009

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1011 SC 1988.

CIT vs. Jain Export Private Ltd. ITA No.235/2013

Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212(SC).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 3

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

Deen Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1238 SC 2009;

Devinder Singh v state (2005) CrLJ 4160 (SC)

Dinesh v. State of Haryana, (5) SCALE 641 2014,

Harjit Kaur v. Roopal, AIR 22 P&H 2004.

Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC)

Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, 6 SCC 727(1994).

Himachal Pradesh v Nikku Ram. Cr LJ 1144(SC) (1995)

Hira Lal and Ors v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, AIR 2685 SC 2004

Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik (92) CRLJ 1510 1986

Janshed Hormusji Wadia v Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).

Kamlesh panjiyar v State of Bihar AIR 785 SC 2005;

Panjiyar v. State of Bihar 2 SCC 388 2005,

Kans Raj v State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1993

Kappisetti Subbharao v. State of A.P, AIR 2864 SC 2009.

Kishan Singh v State of Punjab 14 SCC 204 2007, AIR 233 SC 2008;

Koppisetti Subbharao & Subramaniam v. State of A.P, AIR 2684 SC 2009

Maya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana AIR SC 125,

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 958 SC 1998

Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1242 SC 2009

Rajayyan v. State of Kerala, CrLJ 1633 (SC) 1999

Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand 5 SCALE 311 (2012),

Cri LJ 3442 2012
Reema Agarwal v. Anupam, 3SCC 199 (2004);

S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2184 SC 1996

Satvir Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2828 SC 2001

Shamlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1873 SC 1997

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 4

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1622 SC 1984

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1622 SC 1984

Sher Singh v. State of Haryana , (1) SCALE 25 2015

Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v Century Spinning and (1962) AIR 1314(SC)
Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1 SCC 371(1991);

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa AIR 2004 SC 1993

State of Himachal Pradesh v Nikku Ram. Cr LJ 1144(SC) (1995)

State of Punjab v. Harminder Singh and Ors, Appeal No.670 of

2015(O&M)
Tarsem Singh v State of Punjab, 16 SCC 155 2008, AIR 1454 SC 2009;

Yashoda and Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1411 SC 2005.

HIGH COURT CASES

Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia $ Anor v. state Cr LJ 3541 (2001) (pat);

CIT vs. Jain Export Private Ltd. ITA No.235/2013
Gordhan v. State of Rajasthan, Cr LJ 273 1995 (Raj);
Gurditta singh v. State of Rajasthan Cr LJ 309 (1992) (Raj)
Heera Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2005) Cr LJ 2062
(Uttar);
Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik (92) CRLJ 1510 1986
Jayanta Nandi v. Shipra Karmakar (Nandi), (1) GLD 546 (2015).
Keshav Chandra Panda v. State, Cr LJ 174 1995 at 176
(Ori)
Murali v. State of Kerala, 768 (3) KLJ 768 2005.
Niyamat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 706 (30) Criminal CC
2008.
Premwati v. State of M.P, CrLJ 268 (MP) 1991;
State of Kerala v. Rajayyan, Cr LJ 989(Ker) 1995

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 5

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

State of Punjab v. Harminder Singh and Ors, Appeal No.670 of

2015(O&M)
Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh CrLJ 563 (1992) (AP)
Vijendra Kumar v. State, 2(568)DMC 2008

OTHER CASES

Biswajit Halder v. State of Wesh Bengal (2008) 1 SCC 202

(205): 2007 CrLJ 2300
Dwijen Das v. State of Assam, (2006) (6) Gauh LR 85
(88) (Gauh-DB)
Kailash v. State of M.P (2006) 12 SCC 667
(670): AIR 2007 SC 107
Keshab Chandra Panda v. State 1995 Cr.LJ 174 (Ori.)

Thakkan Jha v. State of Bihar 2006 1 SCC (Cri) 309

V.K. Mishra and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors SC/0792/2015

Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab SC/0210/2015

Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P SC/7948/2007

Mahavir Kumar & Ors v.. State

BOOK REFERRED
• 1 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed. 2010).
• 1 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2010).
• 2 WOODROFFE& AMIRALI, LAW OF EVIDENCE(B M Prasad And Manish Mohan,
19th ed. 2013).
• 3 DR. HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA (11th ed. 2013).
• 3 J K SOONAVALA, SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DIGEST (1950-2010) (V R
Manohar,
5th ed. 2011).

• 5 R P KATHURIA, SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINAL LAW (1950-2008) (Justice M L

Singhal &Varun Kathuria, 7th ed. 2009).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 6

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

• A.P. DATAR, DATAR ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (1st ed. 2001).

• K. D. GAUR, COMMENTARYON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Justice P.V. Reddi, 2nd
ed. 2013).
• S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (2006).
• Sudipto Sarkar, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (V.R Manohar. 7th ed. 2011)

WEB SOURCES
• www.heinonline.org www.judis.nic.in.
• www.lexisnexis.com.
• www.manupatra.com.
• www.scconline.com.
• www.westlawindia.com

LEGAL DICTIONARIES
• Aiyer P.R.,Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).

• Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).

• Greenberg Daniel, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, (4th ed.),
Sweet and Maxwell, Vol. 4.
• Mish F.C., Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed. 2003).
• Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

STATUTES REFFERRED
• The Constitution of India (1950).

• The Code of Criminal Procedure (1973).

• The Dowry Prohibition Act (1961).

• The Indian Evidence Act (1872).
• The Indian Penal Code (1860).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 7

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT IN THE MATTER OF Mr. DINESH GOYAL AND OTHRS v. STATE AND
ANOTHER UNDER ARTICLE 1361 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.

1
Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.-

(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, sentence or order passed or made by any court
or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 8

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Suresh Goyal, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Dinesh Goyal an industrialist and high
profile person. Miss Sharda Gupta was aged about 24 years, daughter of Shri Vikram Gupta,
a businessman, having chain of departmental stores, leading aristocratic life.
2. Shri Suresh Goyal and Miss Sharda Gupta were studying in a posh private deemed university
for MBA. During their university time, they developed intimacy and after number of dating
in the college campus decided to get married .Before the Shri Dinesh Goyal demanded dowry
of substantial value, commensurate with his social status and to spend a minimum of Rs. 1
Crore on the wedding apart from the dowry.
3. On 18th July, 2012 Wedding reception was arranged by Shri Dinesh Goyal on a grand and
lavish scale, with the presence of more than 5000 persons including Ministers, Senior
officials, industrialists, film celebrities, social workers and persons of eminence at Rambagh
Palace.
4. Mrs. Sharda Goyal did not receive proper treatment from her mother-in-law, sister-in-law as
also the father-in-law. Smt. Shalini Goyal was continuously making dowry demands for
Mercedes Benj Classic Car and for a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. By the fact she was unable
to conceive a child she threatened her for dire consequences meaning thereby that if Sharda
Goyal failed to deliver a boy within one year, she would get her divorced and would remarry
her son with someone belonging to their own community .
5. By grace of god 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
organizedand sent to parental house.
6. On 20.05.2015 Shri Suresh Goyal reached his in-laws house and opologised for mis-
treatment 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 servant.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 9

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

7. Goyal family planned and accordingly Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased on 24.5.2015 organo
phosphrus sold under the trade name of “NUVAN” from Shri Sanjay Kumar a shopkeeper
on the pretext that he required the same to kill the flies.

8. On 25.5.2015, the fateful day, Smt. Sharda Goyal, her mother-in-law forcibly administered
poison to the deceased to kill her. Her son also held the body of the 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.
9. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Piyush Kapila, in association with Dr. V. K. Mishra,
Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine and as to the cause of death it was opined that the
deceased had died due to asphyxia secondary to the organi phosphorus poison.
10. Thereafter, Shri Vikram Gupta, father of the deceased came to the hospital and on the same
day he also lodged a report at the Police Station mentioning the harassment caused by the
three accused to the deceased for dowry and 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.
11. The investigation revealed that the accused had purchased organi phosphorus sold under the trade
name of “NUVAN” from Sanjay Kumar, a shopkeeper on the pretext that he required the same to
kill the flies. It was also alleged by the prosecution that on the fateful day three accused in
collusion forcibly administered poison to the deceased in order to kill her. After death search,
police found the diary which was exhibited and relied for domestic violence & dowry demand.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 10

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE I
THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1950 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.

ISSUE II
THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MAKING DOWRY
DEMANDS FROM THE DECEASED AND HER FAMILY.

ISSUE III

THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER S.498A OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

ISSUE IV

THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER § 304B OF

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 11

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
1950 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS
MAINTAINABLE.
1. It is humbly submitted that the present appeal is maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court
is satisfied that there is injustice. The jurisdiction of Supreme Court can always be invoked
when a question of law of general public importance arises.
2. In the present case, the impugned order was passed without application of the law of equal
justice and hence, the order is incorrect in law.
3. Also, in case at hand the ‘substantial’ questions of law are involved. The jurisdiction
conferred under Art. 136 on the SC is a corrective one and not a restrictive one. A finding of
facts may give rise to a substantial question of law, and therefore, the SC is not precluded
from going into the question of facts. [Arguendo] Even if we assume that the case doesn’t
involve ‘substantial’ question of law, SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article
136 can entertain the present appeal. Article 136 uses the wording ‘in any cause or matter’.
This gives widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter, even if it involves
question of fact.
B. THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MAKING DOWRY DEMANDS
FROM THE DECEASED AND HER FAMILY.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon`ble Court that there was the persistent demand of dowry
by the accused. Demanding dowry is prohibited by law under Dowry Prohibition Act and Hence,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 12

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

the accused person are guilty of making dowry demand under s. 3 and s. 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

C. THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER S.498A OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon`ble Court that the accused had treated with the victim
badly. Her life in marital home got deteriorated and she was facing many cruelties. Hence, the
accused are guilty of the offence under s. 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

D. THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER § 304B OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon`ble Court that the deceased was died because of
demanding dowry and also there were harassment and cruelties imposed on her dor taking dowry
soon before her death. Hence, the accused are guilty of Dowry Death under s. 304 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 13

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

ARGUMENT IN ADVANCE

ISSUE I: THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
1. It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the Petitioners against the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan [hereinafter as HC] is maintainable under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court
[hereinafter as SC] under Article 136 can always be invoked when a question of law of
general public importance arises and even question of fact can also be a subject matter of
judicial review under Article 136 [1.1]. Also, the issues involves substantial question of law
and the HC erred in deciding the appeal.[1.2].

1.1. JURISDICTION OF SC UNDER ARTICLE 136 CAN ALWAYS BE INVOKED

WHEN A QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES.
2. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 136 on the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive
one.2 A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by
the SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated.3
3. It has been held in plethora of cases that when the question of law of general public
importance arises, the jurisdiction of SC can be invoked by filing special leave petition. In
the present case, the issue involves matter of General Public Importance and hence, entitled
to be maintainable.[1.1.1]

[1.1.1] That the matter involves question of general public importance and hence, entitled to
be maintainable.
4. It has been held by this Hon`ble Court that when a question of law of general public
importance arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can always

2
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC)

3
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana (2003)11 SCC 241 (SC); see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India (4th
edn. Vol 1 2010); see also Halsbury’s Laws of India (Vol. 35 2007).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 14

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

be invoked. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied
that there is injustice.4 The principle is that this court would never do injustice now allow
injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities.5 In any case, special leave
would be granted from a second appellant decision only where the judgment raises issues of
law of general public importance.6
5. In the case at hand, the HC has given the sweeping judgment that the circumstances are not
conclusive in nature. It has also reiterated the fact that the trial court has acquitted the
accused for the charge of s. 498A and 304-B read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
hence it could not be said that the deceased was being ill-treated or harassed with cruelty on
account of dowry. Demanding Dowry is one of the evil practices rampantly carried on in
North-Indian States and when these demands cannot be fulfilled then the parties follow cruel
methods to their daughter-in-laws to extract more and more dowry. And when the torture
exceeds the limitation then either the victim commit suicide or become the subject of Dowry
Death.
6. In the instant case, despite of the seriousness of crime like dowry death the Court did not
follow the proper method to investigate the case. S. 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
was added to strengthen the victim side and impose liability upon in-laws for the death which
is occurred in their home. But in this case, the very essence of this section has been ignored
and no cause of death has been provided by the Accused.
7. Hence, considering all the above authorities, it is humbly submitted before this court that the
matter involves question of law of general public importance and therefore, the appeal is
maintainable under article 136 of the constitution of India.

1.2. THE ISSUES INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND THE HC

ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL.
8. It is contended that the matter involves substantial question of law and hence entitled to be
maintainable. The Trial Court had acquitted Mr. Shalini Goyal on the plea there is no direct

4
C.C.E v Standard Motor Products (1989) AIR 1298 (SC), see also H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th
edn. Vol 2 2010).
5
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004)3 SCC 214 (SC).
6
Balakrishna v Rmaswami (1965) AIR 195 (SC).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 15

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

evidence and she is woman. Likewise, Mr. Suresh Goyal was also acquitted being youth of
30 Years. On appeal to the HC, no reasoning was provided for their acquittal. And also Mr.
Dinesh Goyal was also acquitted from their charge. Acquitting a person because she is
woman and a youth is against the law of justice. Justice should be equal and proper and it
should not on the basis of caste, creed, race etc.
9. Where findings are entered without considering relevant materials and without following
proper legal procedure, SC interference is called for.7 The expression “substantial question of
law” is not defined anywhere nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through
various judicial pronouncements. A Constitutional Bench of this Court, while explaining the
import of said expression, observed that8:
10. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and
substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in
the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal
Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.9
11. It is submitted that, the present facts in issue satisfy all of the above mentioned criteria. The
case involves the matter of general public importance and it directly and substantially affects
the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of accused.
Also, in the light of the facts that huge amount of cases aroused under same facts and
circumstances, it is submitted that the question is indeed an open question.
12. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of
law is a substantial one and involved in the case.10 It has been laid down that in case of
dowry death cases; presumption of dowry death is to be taken into account when a death has
been happened within the four walls of the room.
13. [ARGUENDO] Even if we assume that the case doesn’t involve substantial question of law,
SC in the exercise of its power conferred under article 136 can entertain the present appeal.

7
Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212(SC).
8
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1962) AIR 1314(SC)
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 16

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

Even on the question of fact, wrong question leads to a wrong answer. In such cases, even
errors of fact can be the subject matter of judicial review under Art. 136. 11 It is open to the
SC to interfere with the findings of the fact given by the HC, if the HC has acted perversely
or otherwise improperly.12
14. The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under article 136, if it considers
it necessary to do so.13 Article 136 uses the wording ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives
widest power to this court to deal with any cause or matter. 14 It is, plain that when the
Supreme Court reaches the conclusion that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a
court or tribunal has not given a fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind
like the finality of finding of facts, or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this
power.15

ISSUE II:- THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE GUILTY OF MAKING DOWRY
DEMANDS FROM THE DECEASED AND HER FAMILY.
1. It is humbly submitted that, § 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as the “DP Act”),16 defines dowry as-
“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 parents 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 said
parties”.

11
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v G. Thirugnanasambandam (2005) AIR 570 (SC).
12
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211(SC).
13
Kathi Raning Rawat v The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991 (All), see also Achyut Adhicary v West Bengal
(1963) AIR1039 (SC).
14
Pritam Singh v The State (1950) AIR 169 (SC).
15
Sripur Paper Mills v Commr. of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR1520 (SC); see also Om Prakash Sood v UOI (2003) 7
SCC 473(SC).
16
The Dowry Prohibition Act, § 2 (1961).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 17

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

2. It is also submitted that, the DP Act, is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the
growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual
receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after
the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage.17
3. The judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v Nikku Ram.18 The
Supreme Court interestingly starred off the judgment with the words ‘Dowry, dowry and
dowry’. It went on to explain why it has mentioned the words ‘Dowry, dowry and dowry’. It
went on to explain why it has mentioned the word ‘dowry’ thrice. This is because demand
for dowry is made on three occasions (i) before marriage; (ii) at the time of marriage; (iii)
after the marriage .Greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases,
followed by torture of the girl leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some
4. It is further submitted that, under § 4 of the DP Act mere demand of dowry is sufficient to
bring home the offence to an accused. Thus any demand of money, property or valuable
security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives would fall within the mischief
of dowry under the Act.19 Thus, it would be seen that § 4 makes punishable the very demand
of property or valuable security as a consideration for marriage, which demand, if satisfied,
would constitute the grave offence under § 3 of the Act.20
5. A demand for property or valuable security constitutes ‘demand for dowry’ if it has direct or
indirect nexus with marriage. The cause or reason for such demand is immaterial.21
6. In the instant case, Mr. Dinesh Goyal demanded dowry of substantial value before the
marriage. And after the commission of marriage Mrs. Shalini Goyal along with her husband
and son continuously making dowry demands for Mercedes Benj Classic Car and for a fixed
deposit of Rs. 1 Crore.
7. It is thus submitted that, it stands established that after the marriage, the deceased was
tortured, maltreated and harassed for not bringing enough dowries. The demand here is in

17
Reema Agarwal v. Anupam, 3SCC 199 (2004); Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam v. State of A.P, AIR 2684
SC 2009; Bachni Devi and Anr v. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home Department, AIR 1098 SC 2011
18
Cr LJ 1144(SC) (1995)
19
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2184 SC 1996; State of Punjab v. Harminder Singh and Ors,
Appeal No.670 of 2015(O&M); ReemaAgarwal v. Anupam, 3 SCC 199 (2004).
20
Kappisetti Subbharao v. State of A.P, AIR 2864 SC 2009.
21
Bachni Devi $ Ane v state of Haryana, AIR 1098 SC 2011

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 18

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

connection with marriage. Even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is
punishable. This leads to the inference that when persistent demands for costly articles,
household goods, etc. are made from the bride after marriage or from her parents, it would
constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry
within the meaning of § 304B of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter referred to as the
“IPC”)22. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. 23

ISSUE-III:- THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER S.498A
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
8. It is humbly submitted that, § 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as, the „IPC‟) defines „cruelty‟ as:
“(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.”
9. It is submitted that, cruelty may be subtle, brutal, by words, gestures, by taunt, or by mere
silence depending upon the circumstances of a particular case. It may be physical, mental or
emotional harassment.24 Furthermore, it has been held that in order to prove cruelty, it is to
be established by the party complaining cruelty that the conduct of the spouse has been of
such a character so as to cause danger to life, limb or health (physical or mental) so as to
give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.25 This has been accepted to be the
meaning of cruelty and has been held by the courts to be rather difficult to define.26

22
IPC §304 (1860).
23
Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 958 SC 1998; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa and
Anr, AIR 1933 SC 2004; Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1242 SC 2009; Vijendra Kumar v. State,
2(568)DMC 2008; Niyamat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 706 (30) Criminal CC 2008.
24
Bhagat v. Bhagat, AIR 710 SC 1994; Jayanta Nandi v. Shipra Karmakar (Nandi), (1) GLD 546 (2015).
25
Harjit Kaur v. Roopal, AIR 22 P&H 2004.
26
Shoba Rani v. Mahukar Reddi, AIR 121 SC 1988.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 19

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

10. It is further submitted that, cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demand, as
stated by the Apex Court is when demand for costly articles, household goods, etc. is made
soon after the marriage by the husband and his relatives.27 The deceased’s failure to meet
the demand leading to repeated taunts and maltreatment are clear proof of cruelty. In the
instant case, just after the marriage the accused continuously kept nagging Mrs. Sharda
Goyal to bring dowry in the form of Mercedes Benz Classic Car and for a fixed deposit of
Rs. 1 Crore and when the demands did not fulfill they started ill-treating with her, which
amount to physical as well as mental cruelty. Due to non-congenial atmosphere and mental
disturbance she was not able to live in normal conditions. She was struggling in her life.
Even after that she was threatened to give birth to a baby boy within one year else she would
be thrown out of the house and her husband will remarry, which is also considered as a
cruelty. 28 When she gave birth to a baby girl no usual ceremonies and festivities were
organized and she was rebuked, cursed and sent to her parental house which amounts to
mental cruelty and harassment.29
11. Thus, it can be clearly established from the above mentioned facts that there was cruelty
(both physical and mental) and harassment meted out to Sharda Goyal under § 498A of IPC.
The demand for dowry followed by harassment to the deceased has thus been satisfactorily
proved.30

ISSUE IV:- THAT THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE UNDER § 304B
OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
12. It is humbly submitted that, in order to attract the application of § 304B of the IPC, the Apex
Court laid down the following essential ingredients viz.31:

27
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 958 SC 1998.
28
Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik (92) CRLJ 1510 1986
29
Rajayyan v. State of Kerala, CrLJ 1633 (SC) 1999
30
Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1011 SC 1988.
31
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 958 SC 1998; Hira Lal and Ors v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, AIR 2685
SC 2004; Nagararajanv State rep. by The Inspector of Police, 336 Cri LJ (NOC 1296) 2010; Baldev Singh v. State
of Punjab, AIR 213 SC 2009, See also: Kans Raj v State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1993; Satvir Singh v State of
Punjab AIR 2828 SC 2001; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa AIR 2004 SC 1993; Baljeet Singh v State
of Haryana AIR 1714 SC 2004; Arun Garg v State of Punjab $ Anor 8 SCC 251 2004; Kamlesh panjiyar v State of
Bihar 2 SCC 388 2005, AIR 785 SC 2005; Kishan Singh v State of Punjab 14 SCC 204 2007, AIR 233 SC 2008;
Tarsem Singh v State of Punjab, 16 SCC 155 2008,AIR 1454 SC 2009; Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand 5
SCALE 311 (2012), Cri LJ 3442 2012

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 20

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

(a) Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances;
(b) Death should have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage;
(c) The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband;
(d) Cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand for dowry;
(e) Cruelty or harassment should be meted out to the woman soon before her death.
13. It is further submitted that, the Court held that the term “otherwise than under normal
circumstances”32 apparently means not the natural death.33 Where death has occurred within
seven years of marriage under mysterious circumstances, held to be a case of dowry death.34
In cases of dowry deaths, circumstantial evidence plays an important role and inferences can
be drawn on the basis of such evidence. That could be either direct or indirect. 35 In the
instant case, the date of marriage was 17.07.2012 and that of the death of Mrs. Sharda Goyal
was 26.05.2015. Thus, the death has occurred within seven years of her marriage. Moreover,
the death was not natural death and had occurred under otherwise than under normal
circumstances. It has already been established by the prosecution that the deceased was
being subjected to cruelty and harassment in relation to demand for dowry by the relatives
of the husband.
14. Furthermore, the expressions “soon before her death” 36 cannot be given a restricted or a
narrower meaning. The interpretation should be one which would avoid absurd results on
the one hand and would further the object and cause of the law so enacted on the other,
concept of reasonable time is the best criteria to be applied for appreciation and examination
of such cases. There should be a reasonable if not direct nexus, between her death and the

32
Indian Penal Code, § 304B (1860).
33
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2324 SC 2000; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 213 SC 2009; Bakshish
Ram and Anr v. State of Punjab, AIR 1484 SC 2013.
34
Maya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana AIR SC 125, See also: Shanti v. State of Haryana AIR 1126 SC 1991;
Vemuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh CrLJ 563 (1992) (AP); Gurditta singh v. State of Rajasthan
Cr LJ 309 (1992) (Raj); Bhuneshwar Prasad Chaurasia $ Anor v. state Cr LJ 3541 (2001) (pat); Heera Singh v.
State of Uttaranchal (2005) Cr LJ 2062 (Uttar); Devinder Singh v state (2005) CrLJ 4160 (SC)
35
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 958 SC 1998. See also Prem Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, SC 1242
(2009): Cr. LJ 1123 2009 : AIR SCW 536 2009: 3 SCC 726 (2009)
36
Indian Penal Code, § 304B (1860).

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 21

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

dowry related cruelty or harassment inflicted on her. The determination of the period would
depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. For want of any specific period, the
concept of reasonable period would be applicable.37
15. It is also submitted that, the words “soon before her death” occurring in § 304B of the IPC
are to be understood in a relative and flexible sense. Those words cannot be construed as
laying down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each case. Whether or not
the cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim for or in connection with the demand for
dowry was soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death, under abnormal
circumstances, would depend upon the facts of each case. There can be no fixed period of
time in this regard.38
16. It is also submitted that, if occurrence of death is preceded by cruelty or by harassment by
in–laws for or in connection with dowry demand and if the connection between the two is
established, mere occurrence of death is enough though death may not have been “caused”
by the in-laws. 39 The proof of direct connection of the accused with her death is not
essential.40
17. Moreover, in the case of Balwant Singh v. Pratap Singh,41 where the court came to the
conclusion that the deceased during her lifetime used to be harassed by her husband and in-
laws on account of insufficient dowry and demands were being made before her death, the
intimation of death by in-laws of the deceased will not absolve the accused of ill-motive,
when necessary ingredients were found to have been established.
18. It is humbly submitted that, § 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Evidence Act”) lays down that if “soon before the death” such woman has been
subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, then the
court shall presume that such person has committed the dowry death. 42 In the present case
that we are dealing with, a reasonable apprehension can be raised, for that the accused
37
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2839 SC 2010;Yashoda and Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1411
SC 2005.
38
Deen Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1238 SC 2009; KeshavShukla and Ors v. State of U.P, 1013 (1)ACR
2011.
39
Premwati v. State of M.P, CrLJ 268 (MP) 1991; Baljeet Singh and Anr v. State of Haryana, AIR 1714 SC 2004.
40
Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, 6 SCC 727(1994).
41
Balwant Singh v. Pratap Singh, 9 SCC 352 (2000).
42
Smt. Shanti and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1 SCC 371(1991); Murali v. State of Kerala, 768 (3) KLJ 768 2005.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 22

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

committed a crime under § 304B of the IPC and a presumption can be raised under § 113B
of the Evidence Act, since seven years of marriage had not been completed. It was held that
the expression "soon before" is a relative term as held by this Court, which is required to be
considered under the specific circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can
be laid down by fixing any time of allotment. It can be said that the term "soon before" is
synonyms with the term "immediately before". The determination of the period which can
come within term "soon before" is left to be determined by courts depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.43
It was also held that we are aware that the word 'soon' finds place in Section 304B but we
would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily
indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but
should be the continuing cause for the death.44
19. In the instant case, before the death of Mrs. Sharda Goyal she was continuously harassed
and beaten by her Husband and other family members for not fulfilling the demand of
dowry. Further when the demand of dowry by her in-laws not fulfilled then the Goyal
family planned to kill her and accordingly Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased the “organo
phosphorus” and with other family members they executed the plan to threaten her and
pressurized her to bring the dowry from her parental house. These all incidents which
happened soon before her death amount to cruelty and harassment. It is further submitted
that in this case Mrs. Sharda Goyal soon before her death was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband and other relatives and the cruelty or harassment was in
connection with the demand of dowry.45
20. Thus, it can be clearly established from the above mentioned facts that Mrs. Sharda Goyal
was died because of the cruelty meted out to her for not fulfilling the dowry demand.
Therefore, the Accused has committed dowry death under s. 304B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Before dying on asking her relative she point respondent for her condition. It was

43
Dinesh v. State of Haryana, (5) SCALE 641 2014, See also Kans Raj v. State of Punjab , 5 SCC 207 (2000): SC
2000
44
Sher Singh v. State of Haryana , (1) SCALE 25 2015
45
Shamlal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1873 SC 1997; see also, Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1226 SC 1991; Keshav
Chandra Panda v. State, Cr LJ 174 1995 at 176 (Ori); Gordhan v. State of Rajasthan, Cr LJ 273 1995 (Raj); State of
Kerala v. Rajayyan, Cr LJ 989(Ker) 1995

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 23

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

held that the conviction for dowry murder can be recovered on dying declaration it it
truthful reliable and voluntary.46
It was further held that the statement of dead person is admissible in law if the statement is
as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in
her death, in case in which the cause of death comes into question.47
21. The probative force both of preparation for commission of offence and of previous attempts
in that direction, manifestly rests on the presumption that an intention to commit the offence
was framed in the mind of the accused which persisted until power and opportunity were
found to carry it into execution. Such evidence is admissible both under section 8 and
section 14.48
22. Court had held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra49 case of murder by
administering poison and dealt with mode and manner of proof in such cases. Four
circumstances are to be examined before recording a conviction. (i) There was a clear
motive for the accused to administer poison to the deceased, (ii) the deceased died of poison
said to have been administered, (iii) that the accused had poison in his possession and (iv)
that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.

46
(1) Crimes 1180 (SC) 1992
47
Bhairon Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Cri. LJ 3738 (SC) 2009
48
Appu v. State, AIR 1971, Mad 194
49
AIR 1622 SC 1984

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 24

 6th FYLC-RANKA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2016

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Appellants humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased to adjudge and declare
that:

1. That the instant appeal is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
2. That Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs. Shalini Goyal and Mr Suresh Goyal are guilty of making dowry
demands.
3. That Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs. Shalini Goyal and Mr Suresh Goyal are guilty of the offence
under s. 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. That Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs. Shalini Goyal and Mr. Suresh Goyal are guilty of the offence
under s. 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

And pass any other relief, that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Appellants)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page | 25