****

Question of Law is involved in the present case

 It is most humbly submitted that this case involves 2 important questions of laws that needs to
be decided by this Hon’ble court.

Whether the diary of deceased has evidentiary value?

It is humbly submitted that Hon’ble high court did not consider diary of deceased as material
evidence. The diary of deceased revealed about her harassment and torture by her in-laws.

It is submitted that when death occurs in a matrimonial home, it is hard to find direct evidences,
thus any evidence which can prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment, must
not be ignored . Thus it is most humbly submitted that diary of deceased has a strong evidentiary
value.

Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal are liablefor
offences u/s 302, 304-B, 498-A, 201 r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C.
The chain of circumstantial evidences is so complete that it without any reasonable doubt, points
towards the guilt of accused.

a. The essential ingredients of sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w sec.-34 of I.P.C. are fulfilled to hold Mr. Dinesh
Goyal, Mr. Suresh Goyal and Mrs. Shalini Goyal guilty for offences under these sections.

 304B. Dowry Death- where the death of any 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 marriage 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.[29]

 498A.-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- whosoever being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for the term which may extended to three yrs. and shall also be liable to
fine.[30]

It is humbly submitted that as held in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu[31] the
presumption of Dowry Death shall be raised only on the proof of following essentials:-
(1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the Dowry death of a
women.
(2) The women was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
(3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
(4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.

2.1.1. There was Dowry demand by the accused

According to Sec.-2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 “Dowry" means 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 parent 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 the said parties, but does not include dower or Maher in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) applies.[32]

According to Black's Law Dictionary, term “dowry”can be defined as the property which a woman
brings to her husband in marriage, or the effects which the wife brings to the husband to support
the expenses of marriage.[33]

 It is humbly submitted that Mr. Dinesh Goyal while having talk with Mr. Vikram Gupta for
marriage of Mr. Suresh & Mrs. Sharda, demanded dowry of substantial value, commensurate with
his social status and also asked him to spend minimum of Rs. 1 Crore on the wedding apart from the
dowry. [34]

 The marriage was performed on 17.07.2012and the agreed dowry was paid to the entire
satisfaction of the social family.[35]

 In survey conducted by Commissioner of Income-Tax u/s 133A (5) wherein photographs of the
wedding ceremony, venue etc. was video graphed, statements of event manager, decorator,
electrician, caterers, taxi suppliers etc. were recorded. Photographs and Video recording showed
assets and items given in dowry.[36]

 Even after marriage Mrs. Sharda Goyal did not receive proper treatment from her in-laws. Mrs.
Shalini Goyal was making dowry demands forMercedes Benj Classic car and for a fixed deposit of
Rs. 1 Crore. A F.D. of Rs. 25 lakh was given by Mr. Vikram Gupta.[37]

As held in the case ofDhan Singh v. State of U.P.[38]“The object being that everything, which is
offending at any time i.e. at, before or after marriage, would be covered under definition of dowry
but the demand of dowry has to be in connection with marriage.” Thus the above contentions
proves that there was a dowry demand.

 Daily diary of deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal proves that there was a Dowry demand

It is humbly submitted that after death search, police found the diary which was exhibited and relied
for Domestic violence and dowry demand.The diary belonged to deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal in
which she was noting every incident minutely.

According to sec.-45 of Indian Evidence Act- opinions upon that point of persons especially skilled in
questions as to identity of handwriting are relevant facts and sec.-47 of Indian Evidence Act-opinion
as to handwriting is relevant. The diary is a very important evidence in proving that there was dowry
demand by the accused.

The contents of diary is admissible as an evidence and can be relied upon as it corroborates certain
circumstantial evidences in this case.

Thus, it humbly submitted that there was a dowry demand in this case and all the accused are liable
under sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.1.2. The deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband,
mother-in-law, and father-in-law for demand of dowry both after marriage.

According to explanation for the purpose of Sec. 498-A, “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
any failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.[39]

The contentions which prove that there was cruelty and harassment with deceased are as follows-:

 It is humbly submitted that after marriage Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Mrs. Shalini Goyal started ill-
treatment with deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal for demand of dowry. With mental disturbance and
non-congenial atmosphere Mrs. Sharda Goyal could not conceive. Her relations with her husband
became strained. Her mother-in-law threatened to give birth to a baby boy, within one year, else she
would be thrown out and she would re-marry her son.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that all the accused are liable for offence u/s 498A and Sec. 3 of
Protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2.1.3. Mr. Dinesh, Mr. Suresh and Mrs. Shalini have committed the Dowry death of
deceased Sharda Goyal.
It is humbly submitted that on 25. 05. 2015all the accused forcibly administered the poison
named “NUVAN” to the deceased Mrs. Sharda Goyal. The deceased died due to organo
phosphorus poisoning and delay in medical treatment.
According to Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Birendar Poddar v State of Bihar[46]“ it
is true that in cases where death takes place within the matrimonial home , it is very difficult
to find direct evidence.”
As held in the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh[47] “In dowry death cases
and in most of such offences direct evidence is hardly available and such cases are usually
proved by circumstantial evidences.”
113B-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Presumption as to dowry death-When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of woman and it is shown that soon before
her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for Dowry, the court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death.[48]

The prime witnesses and circumstantial evidences which proves that there was cruelty with
deceased soon before her death and she was administered poison by her in-laws and husband
are as follows-:
1. PW-1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a shopkeeper told that Mr. Dinesh Goyal purchased organo
phosphorus “NUVAN” on 24.05.2015 on the pretext that he required the same to kill the
flies.
According to High Court – the evidence of PW-1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a shopkeeper is not
reliable. The Hon’ble court did not mentioned the ground on which his statement was not
relied upon. It is humbly submitted that he is a very important and a disinterested witness in
the case. Thus, his statement shall be reliable and admissible.
2. PW-2 Mr. Surendra Kumar, a servant heard the shrieks and cries of the deceased and
extreme weeping of her child. He stated thatthe deceased was crying “Give me salty water. I
do not want to die.”
3. PW-3 Mr. Ved Prakash& PW-4 Mr. Om Prakash, the servantsstated that they smelt the
poisonous odour in the room. The deceased was lying on the bed having bruises and
contusions on her face. Water was splashed on the bed as well as on the floor of the room.
The clothes of the deceased were also drenched. Shri Om Prakash, PW-4, requested Shri
Dinesh Goyal and Suresh Goyal to take the deceased to the hospital immediately. However
the accused replied that there was no necessity therefore and that deceased would be all right
very soon.
4. PW-5 Mr. Anil Kumar & PW-6 Mr. Shiv Kumar, relatives of the deceased who arrived
at Goyal house on the same day stated that they noticed the condition of the room and also
the precarious and deteriorating condition of the deceased. When they asked the accused what
had happened, he reported that it was his private life and they need not bother. The accused
refused to take the deceased to the hospital on the pretext that nothing had happened and he
himself being father-in-law could look after her. They also smelt the poisonous odour in the
room.
In the case of Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh[49]it has been held regarding “interested
witness” that the relationship is not the factor to affect the credibility of witness. Thus PW-5
Mr. Anil Kumar & PW-6 Mr. Shiv Kumar, relatives of the deceased are credible witnesses in
this case.
From the statements of the prime witnesses mentioned above it is clearly evident that the
death of deceased took place in abnormal circumstances. If it had been the case of suicidal
poisoning or accidental poisoning the accused would have had made the serious efforts to
save life of Mrs. Sharda Goyal by giving her appreciate medical treatment or by taking her to
hospital.
The request of servants and relatives of deceased to take her to the hospital was also
denied. This act of all the accused shows that a mensreai.e. evil intention for murder of
deceased was present. Theactusreus in this case was performed by the accused in two parts-
(i) by committing an act of administering the poison to the deceased. (ii) By act of omission
of duty of care and proper medical treatment to the deceased.
The expression “otherwise than under normal circumstances” means a death not taking place
in the course of nature and apparently under suspicious circumstances if not caused by burns
or bodily injury.[50]
 It is humbly submitted that in this case the death of deceased was not Natural death and it
occurred under suspicious circumstances.
In the similar case of Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab[51] “The wife was harassed
by her husband and in-laws for dowry and that she died under abnormal circumstances due to
aluminum phosphide poisoning. The accused were held guilty of offences u/s 304-B & Sec.
498A of the I.P.C.” and in case of Butan Sao v. State of Bihar[52] “where death was proves
to have been caused by poisoning and there was consistent evidence of torture for demand of
dowry, it was held that the fact husband killed his wife stood proved and conviction was
proper.
It is humbly submitted that the information to police about the incident at around 4:30 a.m.
was given by servant PW-4 Om Prakash, not by any of the member of Goyal family.
On that Biru Ahmad, PW-7 entered the information in the daily diary and proceeded
towards the spot. He found the deceased lying on the bed in an unconscious position.
 “There must be material to show that soon before the death of woman, such woman was
subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with demand of dowry then only a
presumption can be drawn that a person has committed the dowry death of a woman” as held
in the case ofG.V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka[53]
 “The word “soon before” in sec. 113B of Indian Evidence Act cannot be limited by fixing
the time limit. It is left to be determined by the courts depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case” as held in the case of Kailash v. State of Madhya Pradesh[54]

It is humbly submitted that after death search, police found the diary which was exhibited and
relied for Domestic violence and dowry demand. The diary belonged to deceased Mrs. Sharda
Goyal in which she was noting every incident minutely.
 In case of State of Gujrat v.Raghu @ Raghavbhaivashrambhai and Ors[60]. It was held
that any documentary belonging to the deceased is a valid evidence to prove the culpability of
the accused.
 The circumstantial evidences and medical evidences corroborates the content of diary which
mentions about cruelty and harassment with the deceased.
 The Hon’ble High Court acquitted the accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal from sec. - 302 and all other
accused were also acquitted from sec. 302 by Trial court. The Supreme Court held in the case
of Rameshwar Das v. State of Punjab[61]that where there was sufficient evidence to prove
that there was Dowry demand and death has also taken place within 7 years, the presumption
arising under Sec. - 304-B did not become automatically rebutted by the fact that the accused
persons had been acquitted under Sec. 302. There were 7 major injuries on the deceased which
were not self-inflicted.Thus they were homicidal. This section applies irrespective of the fact
whether there is homicide or suicide.[62]
 It is humbly submitted that accused Mr. Dinesh Goyal in his statement under sec. – 313 of Cr.
P.C. stated that deceased accidently consumed some drugs and had asked him to give her salty
 water but the poison NUVAN, not any drugs were consumed by the deceased. He also stated
that he called Dr. O.P. Chaudhary but he was called by the police. He came after the police
arrived at spot at around 6:00 a.m.
 It is humbly submitted that as held in the case of Wakkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh[63] “The
principle for basing the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence is that each and
every incriminating circumstances must be clearly established by the reliable and clinching
evidence and the circumstances so proves must form the chain of events from which only the
irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn.”
 It is humbly submitted that chain of evidences must be complete with fully established
circumstances. It should be of conclusive nature.[64] From the above contentions and
arguments it is clearly evident that each and every circumstances leading to dowry death of
deceased is clearly established by reliable medical evidences, evidences of dowry demand and
cruelty and by the statements of prime witnesses. These evidences clearly form a chain of
events, according to which in all probability all the accused persons are liable for dowry death
of deceased Sharda Goyal.