Download Intra Moot Court Competition 2022 - Memorial on Behalf of Prosecution and more Study notes Human Rights in PDF only on Docsity!
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 1
Team Code: PITVGU
INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETETION 2022
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JAIPUR
C.C. NO. 100 of 2022
KANUPRIYA.....................................................................................................(PROSECUTION)
V.
RACHIT AND ORS..........................................................................................(DEFENCE)
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTIONS 498A, 325, 504 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION DRAWN AND FILED BY THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Charge-01: Whether Mr. Rachit and his mother are guilty under Section 498A of
Charge-02: Whether Mr. Rachit And His Mother Are Offenders Under Section 504 Of
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
- (^) Bhimanna vs. State of Karnataka AIR 4 September
- (^) Fiona shrikhande vs. State of Maharastra & Anr AIR 22 August 2013
- (^) Mohammed Sabed Ali v Thulesvar Borah AIR 1955 crilj 1318
- (^) Prabhu Dayal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2016 SCC Online MP 8503
- (^) Mohammed Sabad Ali v Thuleswar Borah AIR (1954) 6 Ass 274
- (^) Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 CrLJ 134
- (^) State v. Javed Ahmad Tantrey Sikandar & Ors. AIR 341/2A/04 of 2013,
- (^) Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors AIR 27 May, 2008
- (^) Naresh v. The State of Uttarkhand AIR 25 April, 2018
- (^) Ishwar Pratap Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Home AIR 28 November, 2017
- (^) Ahsan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 29 August 2017
- (^) Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State of U.P. & Anr AIR 17 October 2008
- (^) Md. Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Anr AIR 4th 2009 September
- (^) Rambaran Mahton v. The State AIR 1958 Pat 452
STATUTES AND ACTS REFERRED
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2 of 1973)
The Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)
LEXICONS
- Aiyar P Ramanathan, Law Lexicon, 2005
- Garner Bryana, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7 th (^) Edition, 1999
STATEMENT OF FACTS
- Rachit Malhotra, a Hindu who lives in Jaitpura, is a senior HR Manager by profession and Kanupriya Singhania who is a Hindu, lives in Delhi.
- One day her father suddenly fell ill and expressed his last wish to see her get married.
- Rachit and Kanupriya’s marriage solemnized on 10th^ of April 2003 as per Hindu rites and rituals under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After marriage, Kanupriya continued her studies, and Rachit did well at his job and was promoted to President.
- It started being painful for her to manage both academic life and domestic responsibilities as she was never appreciated for all the work that she did at home and was always humiliated in front of others.
- Sometimes her Mother-in Law also commented on her that ‘Tumhare Papa ney toh Shadi bhi aache sey nhi ki’ and whenever she told about this to Rachit he replies that she is overacting and it is very small thing.
- Meanwhile both of them decided to have a family but she won’t be able to conceive and after her medical checkup it was found that she was not capable to bear a child.
- Her Mother-in Law starts abusing her by saying ‘Dahej toh diya nhi aur varis bhi nhi’. After Kanupriya got a Job everything was going well but on 29th^ of September 2009 her Mother-in Law saw Kanupriya with her Colleague and asked her about the boy, and she said that it is her personal life so please don’t interfere in it as her Mother-in Law many times objected her that she is a daughter-in-law of a reputed family and these activities give a bad Impression of the family in society.
- When this fact came to knowledge of Rachit, he objected Kanupriya and soon this turn into a serious fight between them and in anger she took a Flower Vase and hit her mother-in Law, to which Rachit slapped her. After this she left her husband home and FIR was filed against her husband and her Mother-in Law.
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
CHARGE NO. O
CHARGE NO. 02
CHARGE NO. 03
Whether Mr. Rachit and his mother are guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Whether Mr. Rachit And His Mother Are Offenders Under Section 504 Of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Whether Rachit Is Liable Under Section 325 Of Indian Penal Code,1860?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
WHETHER MR. RACHIT AND HIS MOTHER ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 498A
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?
CHARGE NO. 01
1.1: It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the acts committed by Rachit (hereinafter referred to as Accused No. 1) and his mother (hereinafter referred as Accused No. 2) in pursuance of their ill-behavior towards Kanupriya have clearly subjected her to cruelty as per the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 4 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’).
In Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P.^5 Supreme court held that Section 498A does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by woman who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative.
Section 498-A of IPC reads as follows,
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
(^4) 5 (^) (Act 45 of 1860) Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P. AIR 2019
1.Wilful conduct which caused mental injury to Kanupriya
(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. For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients require to be satisfied:
(a) The woman must be married; (b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and (c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband^6
The major grounds for establishing the offence under 498A are
The legal concept of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to amount to an offence has not been defined by any statute of the Indian Legislature relating to offences.
Mental cruelty is defined as a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living^7
The supreme court held that for the purpose of Section 498A of IPC cruelty need not be physical even a mental torture and abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty^8
(^67) U. Suvetha v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 757 8 Parveen Mehta v.Gananath Pattnaik^ Inderjit v State^ Mehta of Orissa^ AIR 2002 2002 SCC 2 SCC 619706
2. Harassment on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand
In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh^14 ,the Supreme Court observed that no uniform standard can be laid down for guidance with regard to mental cruelty. The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a lengthy period, where relationship has deteriorated to an extent that, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with other party any longer. In reference to above mentioned cases it is well established that mental cruelty comes within the purview of Section 498A and Kanupriya has been subjected to the same.
Analysis of this section shows that this law deals with four types of cruelty:
Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide, Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman, Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some property or Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.
In order to prove that Kanupriya was subjected to harassment which ultimately led to cruelty the counsel would like to bring to the notice of Hon’ble Court the statements used by the Accused No. 2 “ Dahej toh diya nhi aur varis bhi nhi diya ”. This statement fulfills the necessary ingredients of harassment that Kanupriya’s father was unable to yield the demand of dowry and she was harassed for same.
Relying on the aforesaid cases and arguments, it is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that both the accused are guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code
(^14) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)4 SCC 511
- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-
- Table of Contents 4-
- Books
- Websites
- Statutes
- Lexicons
- Statement of Facts
- Statement of Jurisdiction
- Statement of Charges
- Summary of Arguments
- Arguments Advanced 12- - 12- Indian Penal Code, 1860? - 16- Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- Charge-03: Whether Rachit Is Liable Under Section 325 Of Indian Penal Code,1860? 20-
- Prayer
- Rashmi Chopra vs. State of U.P. AIR^30 April, S. NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION
- U. Suvetha v. State AIR (2009) 6 SCC
- Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta AIR 2002 SCC
- Gananath Pattnaik v State of Orissa AIR 2002 2 SCC
- A. Jyachandra v. Aneel Kaur AIR 2005 SCW
- Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit AIR 2006 3 SCC
- Neelu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli AIR 2006 SC
- Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 1 SCC
- Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit AIR 2006 3 SCC
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh AIR (2007)4 SCC
- Surendra prasad vs. State of U.P. AIR
- Vikram Johar v State of U.P. AIR 26 April
- 236:1960 CrLJ 13. Abraham v State of Kerala AIR 1960 Ker
- S.Gopal, AIR 1953 CrLJ
- 3 The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of
- 1213 Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 1 SCC
- 15 Surendra prasad vs. State of U.P. AIR
act because the person insulted does not take the provocation in the manner intended, or exercises self- control, or being terrified by the insult, or overpowered by the personality of the offender, does not actually break the peace or commits another offence^16.
In judging whether a particular abusive language comes within the mischief of section 504, I.P.C, the Court has to see what the effect of the language would be used in ordinary course of events and not how the complainant actually behaved on being abused. Merely because a man of cool temperament did not react violently or break the peace it does not follow that no offence was committed by the accused.
SCOPE AND OBJECT
For an offence under S. 504, what is material is not the reaction of the complainant which might vary according to the sensitiveness of the individual insulted but the intention of the offender to provoke or his knowledge that he is likely to provoke the person insulted to commit an offence^17
An insult which under ordinary circumstances would be likely to provoke the person insulted to cause a breach of peace is within the provisions of the section although the person insulted may have been reduced to a state of abject terror so as to render improbable that he would commit a breach of peace.
The Court has merely to consider the standard of an ordinary reasonable man to see if the insult offered is such as is ordinarily sufficient to arouse passions and provoke retaliation by words or deed. If the abusive language used or insult hurled, in the ordinary circumstances are such that they ordinarily
provoke the man or woman of his or her position to commit a breach of the peace. The mere forbearance of the person insulted being provoked is not sufficient to protect the offender.^18
If the insult hurled or abusive language used intentionally is of such a nature as would, in the ordinary course of events, lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit the offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of S. 504 I.P.C., merely because the insulted person
