Case Memorial

Avantika Chaudhary (Deceased) vs. Mahesh Vadhi & Others

Submitted To:

Court of Sessions
[Insert Jurisdiction]

Submitted By:

[Your Name or Team Name]

Counsel for the Prosecution/Defense

Date of Submission:

[Insert Date]

Sections Involved:

• Section 304B, Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 113B, Indian Evidence Act

Matter:

Dowry Death, Cruelty, and Harassment

Memorial Index
Page no

1. Cover Page
2

2. List of abbreviations
3

3. Relevant cases
4-5

4. Introduction
6-7

5. statement of jurisdiction
8

6. Fact of the case

9-10

7. Facts detailed
11-12

8. Issue
13-14

9. Arguments
15-18

10conclusion .
19
 11 prayer
20

List of Abbreviations

1. IPC - Indian Penal Code

2. CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure

3. SC - Supreme Court

4. HC - High Court

5. Sec. - Section

6. Art. - Article

7. AIR - All India Reporter

8. SCC - Supreme Court Cases

9. DW - Defense Witness
 10. PW - Prosecution Witness

11. E.A. - Evidence Act

12. v. - Versus

13. & Ors. - And Others

14. Rs. - Indian Rupees

15. No. - Number

16. etc. - Et Cetera

17. i.e. - That is

18. e.g. - For Example

Relevant Cases

1.Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991)

• The Supreme Court defined the essential ingredients of a “dowry death” under
Section 304B IPC. It held that unnatural deaths occurring within seven years of
marriage, with evidence of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands, raise a
presumption against the accused.

2.State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1991)

• It was held that the prosecution must establish cruelty or harassment soon before
the death for Section 304B IPC to apply. The proximity between the harassment and
the death is critical for invoking the provision.

3.Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990)

• The Court ruled that in cases of suicide or unnatural death, if evidence suggests
personal reasons (e.g., mental health) unrelated to dowry demands, Section 304B
IPC cannot be applied.

4.Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)

• This case established the principles governing circumstantial evidence. The

prosecution must establish a chain of events that leaves no room for any hypothesis
other than the guilt of the accused.

5.State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda (2003)

• The Court reiterated that mere financial difficulties in a marriage do not constitute
dowry harassment unless specific demands are made or linked to the harassment.

6.Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000)

• The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of guilt under Section 113B of
the Evidence Act but clarified that the prosecution must first establish the ingredients
of dowry death. The presumption arises only after the foundational facts are proved.

7.Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017)

• The Court ruled that evidence of consistent cruelty and harassment related to
dowry creates strong grounds for convicting the accused under Section 304B IPC.
However, vague or unsupported allegations weaken the case.

8.Laxmi v. State of Haryana (2002)

• In this case, the Court upheld the importance of dying declarations, provided they
are free of doubt regarding the victim’s mental and physical condition at the time of
recording.

9.Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka (1994)

 • This case highlighted that harassment unrelated to dowry demands, such as verbal
abuse or family disputes, does not automatically invoke Section 304B IPC.

10. Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (2009)

• It was ruled that evidence of dowry demand, cruelty, and close proximity to death
forms a strong basis for conviction under Section 304B IPC

Introduction

A Tragic Tale of Domestic Violence

This case study delves into the harrowing ordeal of Avantika Chaudhary, a promising young
architect whose life was tragically cut short due to domestic violence. Her story serves as a stark
reminder of the pervasive nature of domestic abuse and the devastating consequences it can
have.

Avantika's case highlights the insidious cycle of physical, emotional, and financial abuse that can
trap victims, often leaving them feeling isolated, powerless, and hopeless. The complexities of
societal expectations, cultural norms, and systemic failures that contribute to the perpetuation of
domestic violence will be explored in detail.

Through a careful examination of Avantika's experiences, we aim to shed light on the urgent
need for increased awareness, effective legal measures, and supportive resources to combat
domestic violence. By understanding the factors that led to this tragic outcome, we can work
towards preventing future incidents and ensuring justice for victims.

Crafting a Compelling Narrative: Suggestions for the Next Section

While your introduction effectively sets the stage for a tragic narrative, the subsequent section
should delve deeper into the heart of the case, offering a more detailed and empathetic portrayal
of Avantika's ordeal.

Here are some suggestions for your next section:

1. A Glimpse into Avantika's Life:

* Early Life and Aspirations: Briefly outline her childhood, education, and dreams.
* The Enticing Facade: Describe the initial stages of her relationship with the abuser,
highlighting the charm and promises that masked the underlying toxicity.

2. The Gradual Erosion of Hope:

* The Subtle Beginnings: Detail the initial instances of abuse, starting with emotional
manipulation, gaslighting, and isolation.
* Escalating Violence: Chronologically narrate the increasing severity of the physical abuse,
including specific incidents and their impact on Avantika's physical and mental health.
* Financial Control: Explain how the abuser gained control over Avantika's finances, limiting
her independence and leaving her vulnerable.

3. The Impact of Societal Pressure and Lack of Support:

* The Stigma of Domestic Violence: Discuss the societal stigma associated with domestic
violence and how it prevented Avantika from seeking help.
* Family and Friends: Explore the role of her family and friends, if any, in recognizing the abuse
and offering support.
* The Role of Institutions: Examine the response of law enforcement, healthcare providers, and
other institutions, if any, to Avantika's pleas for help.

4. The Tragic Culmination:

* The Final Incident: Provide a detailed account of the final, fatal incident, highlighting the
circumstances led to the tragedy.
* The Aftermath: Describe the immediate aftermath of the incident, including the discovery of
the body, the involvement of the police, and the initial public reaction.
By providing a comprehensive and empathetic narrative, you can effectively engage your readers
and shed light on the complex issues surrounding domestic violence. Remember to maintain a
sensitive and respectful tone throughout the writing process, avoiding sensationalism and
focusing on the human impact of the tragedy.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

Statement of Jurisdiction

The present case is filed under the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, as per the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court has the jurisdiction to try the offenses alleged under:

1. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (Dowry Death) – Being a cognizable and non-
bailable offense, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

2. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (Cruelty) – Triable by the Court of Sessions as it
is related to matrimonial cruelty.
 3. Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Presumption as to Dowry Death) – To be
considered alongside the primary charges under IPC.

Thus, the case is lawfully instituted and falls under the competence of this Honorable Court for
adjudication.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. Specifically, Section 27 of the Act grants jurisdiction to the Court of
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate. As the events giving rise to
this case occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court is competent to hear
and determine the matter.

FACTS OF THE STATEMENTS:

1. Marriage and Early Life:

Avantika Chaudhary, a 21-year-old student from the College of
Architecture, Jammu, married Mahesh Vadhi on 9th November 2004.
After the marriage, she moved into Mahesh’s parental home, where he,
his parents, sister, and grandmother resided. Although Avantika came
from a middle-class background, she developed a close friendship with
Mahesh, who was from a wealthier family. The couple decided to marry
after Avantika completed her course.

2. Initial Struggles and Financial Issues:

After marriage, Avantika faced some conflicts with her in-laws, though
she became close to her sister-in-law. However, the couple struggled
financially due to Mahesh’s unsuccessful professional practice and his
desire to maintain a high standard of living. To manage these financial
difficulties, Mahesh borrowed money from Avantika’s parents, taking a
loan of ₹5 lakhs but later refusing to return it, claiming it was for their
daughter.

3. Harassment and Cruelty:

Over time, Mahesh subjected Avantika to mental and physical abuse.
He would often beat her when intoxicated, and verbally insulted her by
calling her family “beggars.” Mahesh’s behavior worsened as financial
pressures mounted, and the couple’s relationship deteriorated further.
Avantika suffered from depression and mood swings and was advised
by a family physician to consult a psychiatrist.

4. Incident Leading to Death:

On 4th January 2011, Avantika was seen by neighbors running out of
her house with her saree on fire. Her mother-in-law was reportedly
chasing her, shouting that she was “out of her mind.” Avantika
collapsed on the road and was taken to the hospital with 88% burns.
Her condition was initially too critical to provide a statement.

5. Dying Declaration:
On 6th January 2011, Avantika briefly regained consciousness, and
her dying declaration was recorded by Sub-Inspector Mohan Lal at
11:00 am. She accused her husband Mahesh and mother-in-law of
setting her on fire. At 12:30 pm, Avantika succumbed to her injuries.

6. Legal Action:
Following Avantika’s death, her parents filed a complaint under
Section 304B (Dowry Death) and Section 498A (Cruelty) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), accusing Mahesh, his mother, and other
family members of causing her death through continuous harassment
related to dowry demands and cruelty.

7. The Case Before the Court:

The case revolves around Avantika’s tragic death and whether it
qualifies as a dowry death under Section 304B IPC and if her in-laws
subjected her to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The key evidence
includes Avantika’s dying declaration, testimony

FACTS DETAILED:

1. Avantika Chaudhary aged 21 years from college of

architecture; Jammu was the topper in the college and worked
with acclaimed architects of the country. She became close to
friend and senior Mahesh Vadhi who was also a good student.
2. Both of them were seen together a lot in and outside college.
Their common friends were surprised. Mahesh was from a
luxurious lifestyle while Avantika was a sober girl from middle
class background. They decided to get married when Avantika
completed her course.

3. On 9th November 2004, they got married and Avantika moved

into matrimonial home where Mahesh’s parents, sister and
grandmother were staying therein. As she started her career
she became close to her sister-in-law and had some issues with
her in-laws but was settled amicably. The practice of Mahesh
did not go as expected and moreover he wanted to maintain a
high life style which led to financial crises. A baby was born on
11th December 2006 and the pretext of poor practice, Mahesh
began to borrow money from friends and relatives.

4. He therefore took a loan of 5 lakhs from Avantika's parents

but refused to return later saying that the money was for their
daughter only. All this led to deterioration of married relation
and at times he used to beat her, when drunk. Mahesh used to
blame Avantika being from a family of beggars and the
consequence of which he once tried to slit her wrists and end
her life but was saved by her sister-in-law. This incident left
deep impression on the family and family physician prescribed
medicines and advised her to consult a psychiatrist.
5. Later on 13th April 2010, a baby boy was born and even then
family was in a financial mess. Money lenders used to threaten
Mahesh, and he vented his frustration on Avantika. She started
suffering from depression and mood swings. On 4th January,
2011, neighbours saw Avantika running out with her saree on
fire and her mother-in-law chasing her shouting she was out of
her mind to do something like this.

6. She finally collapsed on the road and was taken to hospital. It

was reported that she had 88% burns on her body and was
declared to be unfit for statement recording. On 6th January
2011 on brief improvement in her condition, the police was
called and her dying declaration was recorded by Mohan Lal,
Sub-Inspector at 11:00 am. She accused her mother-in-law and
husband of setting her on fire and at 12:30 she died. On 6th
itself the body was sent for post mortem. Avantika's parents
filed a suit against her husband and in-laws under Section 304
B IPC.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the dying declaration given by Avantika is admissible?

2. Whether the dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction or not?

3. Whether Avantika’s husband and her in laws are guilty dowry death or not?

4. Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act
applies in this case?

5. Whether Avantika’s death was a suicide or a homicide?

ISSUED DETAILED:

1. Whether Avantika’s death constitutes a dowry death under Section 304B of

the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
The primary issue is to determine whether Avantika’s death by burns, within seven years
of marriage, is linked to dowry harassment. As per Section 304B IPC, the prosecution
must prove that Avantika was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with
dowry demands, which directly or indirectly caused her death
.

2. Whether Avantika was subjected to cruelty under Section 498A IPC by her
husband and in-laws?
The case raises the issue of whether Avantika was physically and mentally harassed, as
evidenced by beatings, verbal abuse, financial exploitation, and dowry-related cruelty,
thereby fulfilling the elements of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC.

3. Is Avantika’s dying declaration admissible and reliable as evidence?

A significant issue is whether Avantika’s dying declaration, recorded shortly before her
death, can be relied upon to establish the culpability of her husband and mother-in-law
for setting her on fire. The defense may contest her mental fitness at the time of the
statement.

4. Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence
Act applies in this case?

The Court must decide whether the statutory presumption of guilt against Mahesh and his
family for dowry death is triggered, given that Avantika’s unnatural death occurred
within seven years of marriage and was preceded by alleged dowry harassment
.

5. Whether Avantika’s death was a suicide or a homicide?

The defense argues that Avantika’s mental health and depression point to self-
immolation, while the prosecution claims it was an act of murder linked to ongoing
harassment

Arguments for the Defense:

1. Challenge to the Dying Declaration

• The defense will argue that Avantika’s dying declaration cannot be considered
reliable evidence.

• Avantika suffered 88% burns, was under extreme physical and mental
trauma, and heavily sedated at the time of the declaration. This could have
affected her ability to make a coherent and voluntary statement.

• As per legal precedents, if a dying declaration appears inconsistent or

influenced by external factors, its evidentiary value diminishes.

• There are no independent witnesses to corroborate the claims made in the

dying declaration.

2. Absence of Dowry Demand or Harassment

• The defense contends that the ₹5 lakh taken from Avantika’s parents was not a
dowry demand, but rather a voluntary financial loan to help Mahesh during his
financial crisis.

• No evidence or witness testimony establishes that Mahesh or his family ever

demanded dowry or harassed Avantika specifically for dowry.

• Mahesh’s refusal to repay the loan later was due to financial constraints, not
connected to dowry-related harassment.

3. Avantika’s Mental Health and Depression

 • The defense will argue that Avantika’s mental health issues and long-term
depression contributed to her death.

• Avantika was undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression and mood

swings, which indicates a tendency toward self-harm.

• The alleged attempt by Mahesh to slit her wrists could be presented as a

misunderstanding, where Avantika’s mental health struggles were misinterpreted
as external harassment.

4. Allegation of Self-Immolation

• The defense suggests that Avantika committed self-immolation due to her

prolonged depression, family financial troubles, and strained marital relationship,
unrelated to dowry harassment.

• Neighbors’ testimonies and the mother-in-law’s statement that Avantika was “out
of her mind” at the time of the incident point toward a suicidal act rather than
homicide.

5. Contradictions in Prosecution’s Evidence

• The defense will highlight contradictions in the prosecution’s case:

• The dying declaration conflicts with the neighbors’ accounts, which do not
mention witnessing any physical act of violence by the accused at the time of the
fire.

• No forensic evidence or eyewitness accounts directly establish that Mahesh

or his mother-in-law set Avantika on fire.

6. Absence of Motive
 • The defense will argue that there was no strong motive for Mahesh or his family to
harm Avantika. Despite financial difficulties, Avantika had been contributing to the
household and had a reasonably good relationship with her sister-in-law.

• The defense will claim that Avantika’s death was a tragic consequence of her
emotional struggles and external pressures, not an act of intentional cruelty by the
accused.

7. Statutory Presumptions Should Not Apply

• The defense will challenge the application of Section 113B of the Indian
Evidence Act, arguing that the circumstances do not sufficiently prove harassment
for dowry or cruelty preceding Avantika’s death.

• The presumption of guilt cannot override the lack of direct evidence and reliable
witness testimonies

8. Medical Reports and Lack of External Injuries

• Medical evidence does not indicate any external injuries consistent with a physical
altercation before the fire, further supporting the theory of self-infliction.

• If Avantika had been forcibly set on fire, signs of resistance (e.g., bruises,
scratches) would likely be evident, but such evidence is absent.

9. Role of Other Family Members

 • The defense will argue that implicating Mahesh’s mother and family members in
the crime is baseless and unsupported by evidence. The entire family cannot be held
accountable without direct proof of involvement.

Legal Precedents Cited by Defense:

1. State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005)

• The Court held that a dying declaration must be free of doubt, and any indication
of influence, incoherence, or lack of mental fitness weakens its admissibility.

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)

• The Supreme Court laid down the standard of proof for cases involving
circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of evidence with no other
reasonable hypothesis than guilt.

3. Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh (1990)

• The Court ruled that if a suicide is caused due to personal mental health issues
rather than external harassment, it cannot be considered a dowry death.

Conclusion of Defense Arguments

The defense asserts that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that Avantika’s death was caused by dowry harassment or intentional cruelty by Mahesh
and his family. The absence of direct evidence, the unreliability of the dying declaration,
Avantika’s pre-existing mental health issues, and the lack of motive collectively point
toward suicide rather than homicide. The defense seeks acquittal of all charges under
Sections 304B and 498A IPC for the accused.

Prayer for the Accused

In light of the facts, circumstances, evidence presented, and
arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:

1. Acquit the accused of charges under Section 304B IPC

(Dowry Death) and Section 498A IPC (Cruelty), as the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt.

2. Consider the lack of corroborative evidence and the questionable

reliability of the dying declaration while determining the culpability
of the accused.

3. Provide the accused with the benefit of doubt, as no direct or

circumstantial evidence conclusively proves their involvement in the
alleged offenses.

4. Pass any other order or relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in
the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the accused shall ever pray.