MOCK TRIAL EXERCISE (Problem No 2)

In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Submitted by:
Team 11, Section A, VI semester, LC II
1. Vivek Kumar (Roll No.: 589)
2. Aditya Sharma (Roll No.: 601)
3. Tejpal (Roll No.: 278)
4. Sunil Yadav (Roll No.: 96)
5. Taha Yasin (Roll No.: 93)
6. Mayank Kishor (Roll No.: 97)
7. Amit Chaudhary (Roll No.: 549)
8. Nidhi Chauhan (Roll No.: 87)
ROLE PLAY
WITNESSES
1) MONIKA
Aditya Sharma and Mayank Kishor
2) MUKESH
Taha Yasin and Sunil Yadav
3) SI SATINDER
Nidhi Chauhan and Amit Chaudhary
4) ROSHNI
Vivek Kumar and TejPal

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF WITNESSES
MONIKA by Aditya Sharma MUKESH by Taha Yasin
SI SATINDER by Nidhi Chauhan ROSHNI by Tejpal

CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

MONIKA by Mayank Kishor MUKESH by Sunil Yadav
SI SATINDER by Amit Chaudhary ROSHNI by Vivek Kumar
 CASE ANALYSIS

Complainant- Ms. Monika, aged 35, R/o-345, Green Park, Delhi.

Accused- Mr. Mukesh, aged 38, R/o- 678, Hauz Khas, Delhi.

It is submitted:
1. That marriage between the Complainant and the Accused was solemnized 10 years ago. They got
divorced in March of Yr…1. The marriage was ok but the Accused used to harass the
Complainant and had assaulted her many times.
2. That the Complainant had informed the police about the violence 5 times. The Complainant had
suffered many internal injuries due to the acts of physical violence by the Accused.
3. That on July Yr…2 the Complainant discovered that the Accused was having an affair with one
Ms. Roshni. This was the prime reason for their divorce. The Complainant was having 3
convictions for shoplifting but that was justifiable as she had done that to feed her children as at
that time, the Accused was not earning and was not supporting his family financially.
4. That from the said wedlock they have two children, namely Sanjay, aged 8 years and Sonia, aged
5 years. After the divorce, the Complainant got the custody of the kids and the Accused was
given only visiting rights.
5. That the Accused was staying with Ms. Roshni who is also a divorcee and was a proprietor of
health club named as Healthy Smile.
6. That on Christmas day, the kids were with the Complainant and the Accused wanted to spend
some time with the children but he did not get to do that. This had annoyed him and from that day
he wanted to take revenge from the Complainant. The Complainant promised the Accused that he
may spend time with the children on new year i.e. on 1st January. However, as the children were
very tired from the party the previous night, the Complainant informed the Accused that he may
take the kids out from 2 to 5 pm. The Accused was furious and hung up the phone. He picked up
the kids at 2 pm and without informing the Complainant kept the children for whole day and
night. Moreover, he did not pick the Complainant’s calls, which made her very tensed.
7. That on 1st January, the Accused brought Ms. Roshni along with children even after knowing that
the Complainant would not entertain her. The act of bringing Ms. Roshni to the Complainant’s
home was just to make her feel jealous. The Accused willfully ignored the complainant’s request
to hand over Sonia (their daughter). Thus, the Complainant reached out to take her and suddenly
the Accused attacked her poked the cars keys into her right eye. It was a planned act of violence
on part of the Accused as he was very much aware of the fact that he was holding car key in his
 hand. Even after the incident, neither the Accused nor Ms. Roshni tried to give any medical
assistance to the Complainant and fled from the scene.
8. That the whole act of the Accused was only to take revenge from the Complainant and to teach
her a lesson for not letting him spend time with the kids on Christmas. The act was a pre-planned
by the Accused and his girl friend, Ms. Roshini. Further, leaving the Complainant in such critical
condition clearly suggests that they had malafide intention to injure the Complainant.
9. That the Accused caused grievous hurt by damaging the right eye of the Complainant and is
charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt, under section 322 read with section 325 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF MONIKA: -

(By Counsel Aditya Sharma)
1. Please tell your name, age and address to the Court?
A. My name is Monika aged 35 years and I put up at 345 Green Park.

2. Briefly apprise this Court on your marital status with Mukesh, and Children.
A. I was married to Mukesh for about 10 years and we divorced in March of Year…1. There are
two children, Sanjay and Sonia aged 8 and 5 resp.

3. What made you to take divorce from Mukesh?

A. Mukesh was unemployed for a period of time, he had an affair with the other lady, and he had
also assaulted me on many occasions.

4. How do you know Roshni?

A. I discovered Mukesh had an affair with Roshni who is a wealthy divorcee running a health
club. She set her sight on him and carefully stole him from me.

5. What had happened on the Christmas day?

A. I children were with me which annoyed the Mukesh as he wanted to see the them but I
promised him that he could take them on New Year’s Eve.

6. What happened on New Year’s Eve?

A. I phoned him at 8 a.m. to say that children are tired due to late night party and he could take
them from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 31 Dec.

7. What was his reaction?

A. He got angry and hung up the call.
8. Did you notice any other change in behavior of Mukesh?
A. Yes, he did not come to the door to collect the children, rather he beeped the horn and
children went to him.

9. What made you worried on 1st Jan?

A. He deliberately did not return the children until 10 a.m. on 1st Jan, neither he answered my
call. This made me terribly worried.

10. How you got injury in your right eye?

A. When I extended my arms to take Sonia, who was in Mukesh’s arms, he punched me straight
in my right eye, without warning and in front of kids.

11. Were you subjected to any similar injury from Mukesh at any other occasion?
A. Mukesh had assaulted my on my stomach on many occasions but those were not visible
injuries.

12. Did Mukesh or Roshni do anything to make you feel comfortable after the injury?
A. They did nothing to make me feel comfortable. Roshni put me off him and they guiltily went
in to the car and fled.

13. Has Mukesh faced previous conviction for any other crime?
A. Yes, He faced one year detention for a fight in a bar.
 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Cross Examination of Ms Monika

(By Counsel Mayank Kishor)

1. Miss Monika, is it true that once you were very angry and broke all the windows of the club and
for that you were pleaded guilty?
Ans: Yes.

2. Miss Monika, is it true that you have been convicted for shoplifting in three occasions?
Ans: Yes.

3. Miss Monika, is it true that Mr. Mukesh had given false evidence in the court to save your from
conviction?
Ans: Yes.

4. Miss Monika, as per your statement Mukesh has assaulted you many times, but your reported the
matter to Police on five occasions only, is there any specific reason for not reporting the earlier matters to
the police?

Ans: My Lord, earlier there were minor incidents.

5. Miss Monika, as per your statement, in all the five occasions the story started with the fight over
Money, and each time Mukesh punched you in the stomach and that to single punch. Miss Monika, under
anger if you can break the all glasses of a club and May I know why did you not resist and tried to hit him
back?

Ans: My lord, always he punched me once only.

6. Miss Monika, Why you always called to SI Satinder only? Have you know him since before
these cases?

Ans: My Lord, because I have saved his number in my mobile.

7. Miss Monika, you had promised to Mukesh that you will allow both the child to be with him for
the period of 24 hours on the eve of New year, but all of sudden you changed the plan and informed
Mukesh about reducing of period from 24 hours to 3 hours only. Don’t you think it was quite unfair with
Mukesh?

Ans: Yes My Lord, but I did not want to send my child with Mukesh.

8. When both of your child return, are they unhappy?

Ans: No, My lord.

9. At that time, Why you was in so hurry to bring back your child?

Ans: My Lord, I was very unhappy to Mukesh because he did not return back to my children in time.

10. Miss Monika, as per your statement MUKESH DID NOT LOOK AT YOU, why are you
expecting Mukesh should look to you?

Ans: Because once we were wife-husband.

11. Miss Monika, after divorce you and Mukesh both are free from each other, then why you
expecting Mukesh should not live with Miss Roshni?

Ans: Because Ms Roshni was one of the main reasons of our divorce.

12. Miss Monika, as per the statement of SI Satinder, after the incident you informed him that
Mukesh had threatened to Kidnap her children and had struck her in the face. Is it true?
Ans: Yes My Lord, because I was very angry at time and wanted that Mukesh must be arrested.

13. Miss Monika, Mr Mukesh is left handed or right handed?

Ans: Right handed.

 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Examination in Chief of Mr. Mukesh

(By Counsel Taha Yashin )
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
1. Tell your name, age, and your marital details to the Hon’ble Court.

My name is Mukesh. I am 38 years old.

I am a divorcee. My ex-wife’s name is Monika. She is 3 years younger to me. I have two children
from this marriage: son Sanjay who is 8 years old, and daughter Sonia who is 5 years old.

2. Tell this Court about your 10 years of married life with Monika?

Despite my love and care for Monika, our marriage of ten years has never been happy and
smooth. It was basically due to short-temperedness and weird habits of Monika. I have been
patient all this while, hoping that her attitude will normalize with time and more importantly
keeping in mind the negative effects our separation will have over my children psyche. But her
depressed state, rather than being medicated and taken care of, went from bad to worse. Now it
was not just limited to her erratic behavior, but it escalated to criminal activities like shop-lifting.
Her being convicted for shop-lifting, not once but thrice in the court of law, was a reason of huge
embarrassment for the entire family and especially the kids. She was diagnosed for acute
depression. Her high-handedness, short-temperedness, and abusive violent behavior kept on
increasing rapidly and ruined my peace and the peace of the house in general.

3. What were the probable reasons that culminated to divorce between you two?

From getting married with hopes of loving, peaceful life—especially after the birth of two
children—this marriage transformed into like sharing the roof with a seasoned criminal, wherein
abusive, erratic behavior and regular visits to police stations and courts became a routine activity.
 Monika had an indifferent attitude both towards me and the kids. She never felt guilty for the
activities she was indulged in. This was both physically and mentally torturous and exhaustive for
me. Till when was I supposed to keep suffering? So despite all my love for my children, I was
compelled to culminate this relationship with a divorce.

4. You are the father of two children: Sanjay (8) and Sonia (5). How has your relationship been with
your children, before and after divorce? What is the frequency of your meetings and how does Ms
Monika react to you meeting your children?

The divorce at the end of ten years of marriage has had no effect on my relationship with my
children. My kids have always been an integral part of my life and the driving force of this
marriage too. With the birth of my son Sanjay, my faith in this marriage and my responsibility
towards my family increased. With the birth of Sonia some three years later, it only emboldened
and I was surer that Monika’s behavior would change and normalcy would ensue. In fact all the
embarrassment that Monika brought to the family was bearable only because I was considerate
towards my kids.
My love towards my children is no less after divorce too. Rather I would want my kids to live
with me, away from the torturous, abusive attitude of their mother, and this is precisely what the
kids also want.
I usually meet my children every week-end, for almost 4-6 hours. Monika has always tried to
prevent my access to my children. She has been reluctant in letting them have a good time in my
company. She is specifically jealous of the fact that the kids enjoy Roshni’s (my partner)
company too.

5. Tell the Hon’ble Court, what transpired in between Christmas and the New Year eve?

This was my first Christmas after I had been separated from my children. I missed them and
wanted to see them. But Monika had refused to let me see them on Christmas day. I was upset
over the fact but with a view of keeping a friendly relation, I negotiated for the New Year’s Eve.
Overnight stay was agreed. But on the 31st, Monika informed me that I could only have them
from 2 PM for the afternoon, citing the reason that kids really did not want to see me. This utter
lie had upset me beyond imagination but I said that I will collect them at 2 PM before
disconnecting the phone.
As an overnight stay was pre-decided, I brought the children to Monika’s place at 10 AM on the
1st of January.
Monika stormed out of the house, and was at the car shouting children were late. Upon seeing
Monika angry and violent, Sonia began crying and she said: “Daddy, Please tell mummy to be
nice to us and let us live at your house.” Monika clearly heard this and as a result, violently
attacked me. At that point, I had to prevent falling and hurting Sonia, I had to defend myself and I
also had to protect Roshni. So instinctively I struck Monika with my left hand. I was not even
conscious that I had car keys in my left hand. It was neither a pre-determined punch, slap or
flailing, nor was it aimed at injuring her eye. Rather it was just one blow, meant to knock her
down so as to calm her.
I do not deny striking her but it was instinctive, in self defense, and only meant to prevent the
situation from going out of hand.
 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Cross Examination of Mr.Mukesh

(By Counsel Sunil Yadav)
CROSS-EXAMINATION

1. You have a history of scuffle/violence with your ex-wife and you have also been convicted in the
past. Do you accept?

No, there is no history of scuffle/violence with my ex-wife. I have never hit her; rather I have
never hit women. These are all calculated lies to assist her scheme to show me in bad light and
prevent my access to my children. She is not doing this for the first time. Earlier too, not once but
five times she has made allegations of domestic violence against me. Each time it was alleged
that I had punched her in the stomach. But this was a straight forward lie and her never making a
statement about her allegations further concretizes how disturbed and problematic she has always
been.
I had been convicted once for a fight in a bar, to which I pleaded guilty and received one month’s
detention. But this has nothing to do with Monika or this case. This was just one odd event in my
life.

2. Is it true that you did not abide by the timings allocated by Monika (mother of the children’s
concerned) on the 31st eve, and to add to it, you were not receiving her calls?

No. This is again a manufactured lie. It was not me but Monika who did not abide by the
scheduled, pre-decided timings. Firstly she did not allow me to see my children on the Christmas
day. With hopes of keeping a friendly relation, and more importantly looking forward to meet my
children, I negotiated for the New Year’s Eve. An overnight stay was agreed upon. She went back
from what she had said and later informed me that I could only take them at 2 PM. Moreover she
cited the reason that the kids really did not wanted to see me. I couldn’t imagine that she could go
down to this level.
 Monika had never told me that the children had to go back home at 5 PM, the same day. This is
another manufactured lie. Assuming that though the meeting had started late, i.e. at 2 PM, but I
have the company of my children till 10 AM the next day, I brought the children to Monika at 10
AM on 1st January. This was perfectly as decided, to my consciousness. At what point did I
violate the decision?
And as far as not taking any calls is concerned, it was merely for the fact that I did not wanted
anyone to interrupt my precious time with my children. Even if the phone did ring at 5 PM, I was
not aware that it’s Monika. So there is no question of pre-determination of not receiving any call.

3. Synchronizing with your history of violence, you are charged with voluntarily causing hurt to
Monika (your ex-wife). Do you accept the charge?

I have stated earlier that there is no history of violence.

I agree that I did strike Monika, but it was not voluntary. It was in self defense and was meant to
take control of the situation instead of injuring her.
At that point when Monika was violent and had attacked me, I had to prevent falling and hurting
Sonia, I had to defend myself and I also had to protect Roshni. So my strike was just one blow,
and was meant to calm her down. It was not pre-determined. I did not intend to hurt her. Rather it
was instinctive, wherein I was not even conscious that I had car keys in my left hand. There is no
question of poking her eye. It was a mere accident that the car keys struck her eye. I was and I am
certainly sorry for the way things unfolded.

4. The statements reveal that you have been relatively loving and considerate too, towards Monika,
in some parts of your married life. How has divorce made things so bitter that for trivial reasons,
you poke her eyes with your car keys? Do you realize that it could have been fatal or turned her
blind?

I have always wished that the relationship be full of love and care. At a point when Monika
became an embarrassment for the family, then too I wished the same, if not for Monika then at
least for my children. I have tried to give evidence of Monika being under medication, at her
trials, and protect her.
It is not the divorce that has made things bitter, but it was bitter experiences that had led to
divorce. And I have stated earlier that I did not poke my car keys into her eye. I know it could
 have had dangerous repercussions but I strongly stand by the fact that it was instinctive, with no
pre-determined notion of hurting her and was absolutely in self defense.

5. In your statement you said that you struck her in self-defense, defending Sonia and Roshni (your
partner) from getting hurt. You also state that she was depressed and under medication for quite
some time. Under these circumstances, your cold behavior towards her (like not coming inside
the house to receive children) and flouting the scheduled timings (not returning them back on
fixed time and not even feeling courteous enough to inform in case of any delay), amounts to
voluntary mental torture. And then you physically assault her too. How will you justify the
mental and physical agony that she has gone through because of you?

Neither mental nor physical torture was intended upon Monika. She definitely was under
medication for depression, and this is precisely why I, despite her upsetting me by not allowing
my access to children on Christmas, negotiated for New Year’s Eve. There are endless list of such
negotiations I undergo with her in daily life for keeping a healthy, friendly relationship after
divorce. I do not intend to have a cold behavior towards her, but I do get upset over her conduct. I
was angry over her flouting the decided time and so did not go inside the house. I did return them
back on fixed time, which was 10 AM on 1st January. I have told earlier that returning the
children back at 5 PM the same evening is a manufactured lie. Nothing such was told to me.
I did not call because to my understanding, I was on time. And I did not receive the call just to
enjoy the maximum out of the little time I had with my children. And physical assault (as you say
it), was a mere accident. It was instinctive and without any intention of hurting her. So there is no
question of my conduct adding up to her miseries.
 In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Respondent

Examination-In Chief of Satinder:-

(By counsel Nidhi Chauhan)

Q1: Would you please introduce yourself?

Ans. Sub-inspector Satinder, Green Park Police Station.

Q2. When did you receive a complaint from the Petitioner (Ms. Monika) and regarding what?

Ans. On 1st January 2017 at 10:36 am when I was on duty alone at the police station, I received a call
from Ms. Monika reporting that her former husband has threatened to kidnap her children and had a
struck her in the face.

Q3. Are you aware of any similar complaints by Ms. Monika in the past?

Ans. Yes. In the past, she made five allegations of domestic violence against Mr. Mukesh, in relation to
which, I visited her residence 3 years ago. It was always alleged by Ms. Monika that Mr. Mukesh had
punched her in stomach; however, Mr. Mukesh refused to make any comments on such allegations and
only said “wait and see if she makes a statement”, but Ms. Monika never made a statement against him.
Q4. What were your observations on reaching at her residence after the complaint?

Ans. On arriving at her residence, I saw that she was angry and crying. Her right eye was severely
injured. Her children were crying pleading to be allowed to keep the presents.

She explained that Mr. Mukesh had kept the children later than what was agreed and on returning them,
he acted in an offensive way towards her. Ms. Monika further stated that as she was leading her daughter
away from him, he poked her in her right eye with car keys and had to be restrained by Ms. Roshini.
Q5. What action did you take on the complaint?

Ans. I drove to Mr. Mukesh’s residence and arrested him for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and
cautioned him.

Q6. What was Mr. Mukesh’s reaction to it?

Ans. He said “Look, whatever you think about the other times we’ve met, this time even you can see what
happened. She’s mad. I had to hit her. I’m sorry for it but you would have done the same.”

Q7. What was Ms. Roshini’s reaction to Mr. Mukesh’s arrest?

Ans. Ms. Roshini came to the police station and spoke to me. She told me she knew Mr. Mukesh should
not have hit Ms. Monika and that Mr. Mukesh’s act was owing to his bad temper as he couldn’t be with
his children on Christmas.
 In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Respondent

Cross Examination of Satinder:-

(By counsel Amit Chaudhary)

1. You always attended Mrs. Monika while there were other police personal in the police station. Is it
true?

Ans. Yes, as I was familiar with the matter.

2. Mrs. Monika always called you in the police station. Is it true?

Ans. Yes, like I said I was familiar with the matter, therefore, Ms. Monica always called on my official
number.

3. Did you provide any medical assistance when you found Mrs. Monika badly injured her right eye?

Ans. Yes.

4. Is it true that you are personally inclined towards Ms. Monika as you only have attended all her
complaints?

Ans. No, it’s a baseless assumption. I have already stated that I attended to her complaints only for the
reason that I was familiar with matter, as Ms. Monica had made several allegations of domestic violence
by Mr. Mukesh in the past. I’ve also visited her residence three years ago in relation to one of such
allegations.

5. How many persons are normally on duty in your police station?

Ans. Four or five.

6. Whether she called on your mobile or on landline phone of police station?

Ans. Landline.

7.What is the distance of Monika’s house from Green Park police Station?

Ans. About 2 km.

8. Which vehicle was used to reach Monika’s house?

Ans. Motorbike.

9. After reaching her house what you did?

Ans. I called medical help for her. I then listened to what she had to say and acted in accordance with my
official duties.
 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Examination in chief of Ms.Roshni

(By Counsel Tejpal)

Q:1 Please apprise this Hon’ble Court about your name, profession and address?

A: I am Roshni, proprietor of club healthy smile residing at 678 Hauz Khas new Delhi with Mukesh.

Q:2 Tell this hon'ble court about Mukesh and his social status.

A: He is divorced and helpful, caring and social person. He has 2 children Sanjay and Sonia. He has one
day custody to enjoy with them and presents gift.

Q3: Please advise this court about your last visit.

A: On 31st Dec Year -0 he picked me up his children at 2pm. They were enjoying with the presents but I
found Mukesh was little irritated. He couldn't spend time with them on Christmas Eve. Next day on 1st
January Monika came and started misbehaving with him which made the Mukesh more upset. She called
me man-eater. Mukesh tried to calm down her. Sonia was in his arms when she tried to pull out his hair.
Mukesh's in the attempt to protect Sonia, extended his left hand towards Monika and accidently hit her
right eye. Somehow, he had the card keys in his right hand, which injured Monika’s eye. It was just an
accident and he had no intention to hit her.

Q4: What did you do, when you came to know that Mukesh was arrested?

A: I asked SI Satender to release him on bail as it was just an accident and not a deliberate act.
 In the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi

State PETITIONER
Versus
Mukesh RESPONDENT

Cross Examination of Ms. Roshni

(By Counsel Vivek Kumar)

Q1. Tell your name and address to the hon’ble court.

A1. My name is Roshni and my address is 678,Hauz Khas.

Q2. Do you live there with Accused?

A2. Yes.

Q3. Is it true that you are a rich lady, Proprietor of Health Club Healthy Smile.
A3. Yes

Q4. Was then unemployed Mr. Mukesh in extra marital affair with you before his divorce.
A4. Yes

Q5. On 31 Dec yr..0, when accused picked up his children at 2.00 pm from the house of victim. were you
present there with accused.
A5. Yes

Q6. Is it true that Mr. Mukesh had been irritated that time?
A6. Yes, he had been little irritated.

Q7. Both of you deliberately ignored to answer Monika’s call as you thought she might complain and
disturb you. Isn’t it true?
A7. Yes

Q8. You were also present at the crime scene with accused. Weren’t you?
A8. Yes, I was there.

Q9. Is it true that when Monika called you ‘Man Eater’, accused became angry and forced Monika to
apologize.
A9. Yes but….
No No Ms. Roshni you are not required to explain, just tell the Hon’ble Court whether Mukesh told
Monika to apologize.
Yes

Q10. you were on the left side of car, i.e. opposite to the driver side.is it true?
A10. Yes,

Q11. So When accused pocked the eye of victim, you have to look through the car to see what is
happening on the other side. Don’t you?
A11. Yes but it was in the self defence.
Ms Roshni let the court decide whether it is self defence or not.

Q12. Is it true that instead of providing medical help to victim and to take care of Kids who were crying
helplessly, both of you fled from there.
A12. Actually….
No Ms Roshni I am asking a fact just say yes or no.
Yes.
Observation and Final Argument:-

In this case the allegation of the complainant was justifiable as the accused deliberately poked the
cars keys into the eyes of the victim.

From the statement of the witnesses it can be ascertained that there are many points which
indicates the misdeed of the accused:-

1. The accused used to be very violent with the complainant and had beaten her many times.
2. The accused neither maintain his Ex Wife nor the children in the family.
3. The accused did not provide food and other necessity and because of which the complainant
had to do shoplifting.
4. The accused had extra marital relationship with Roshni, the proprietor of Healthy Smile
before the divorce.
5. That accused was not picking up the calls of the complainant just to harass her even when she
was tensed about the where about of her children.
6. That accused being adamant, kept children for longer time than it was agreed between them.
7. The accused is a hot tempered person and was convicted for a fight in a bar in Yr…6.
8. When Monika called Roshni ‘Man Eater’, accused became angry
9. That accused after poking the complainant in her eyes did not provide her any medical
assistance. He even fled from the scene.
10. The act of the accused was a planned act, and was done to take revenge from the complainant
because she had not allowed him to meet children on Christmas Day..He also brought Roshni
along with the children just to make her jealous.

From the series of acts it clearly signifies that the accused had deliberately done this act to harass
her. The act of keeping the car keys in his left hand after stopping the car is quite contrary to
normal behaviour; moreover, any person would grab something if losing balance and not hit at
someone. The trial against the accused u/s 325 of IPC is justifiable.