Moot Court Problem
Case Name :- St. v. Purush
Case Name in appeal :- Purush v. st.
Naari, daughter of Pitamah was married to Purush, a police constable on 25th June, 2016. After the marriage, Naari shifted to her new home where her husband lived with his father (Ahankar), mother (Agyani), brothers (Lovh and Krodh) and sister (Viskanya). Soon after the marriage. Naari realised that her in-laws were disappointed by the low dowry given in marriage. They also thought that Naari was a poor match for their police constable son. Purush proved be a heartless husband who often indulged in rebuking and beating Naari for passing family secrets to her parents. Naari visited her parents whenever she got an opportunity and each time she narrated the incident of her humiliation, ill-treatment and beatings. After one of her visits, Pitamah accompanied her to Purush's house and got an assurance from Ahankar that in future the family would take special care of her sensitive nature. For about two months, Pitamah received no information about his daughter. On 1 January, 2017, Pitamah received intimation from a neighbour of Purush that Naari had received burn injuries and was lying in a critical condition in Govt. Hospital. Before Pitamah could reach the hospital. Naari succumbed to the hundred percent burn injuries.
Purush, Ahankar, Agyani, Lovh, Krodh and Viskanya were arrested and put on trial for offences under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All the six accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Agyani in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, told that while cooking food on kerosene stove the deceased caught fire accidentally. However, none of the accused had any sign of fire injuries in their person. The prosecution mainly relies on the oral testimony of Pitamah about the post marriage harassment of Naari. The Trial Court convicted all the six accused under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The accused appealed in High Court against their conviction mainly on three grounds:
(a) that in view of no clear proof to suicide by Naari a conviction under Section
306 is not sustainable;
(b) and that the evidence adduced to prove abetment of suicide and cruelty is meagre;
(c) that in view of the primary burden of proof remaining on the prosecution the accused is entitled to acquittal in the event of slightest doubt about the guilt
0 Comments