INTERNSHIP DIARY

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Sonal Datta

Ramandeep Kaur

Course: B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) INTERNING ADVOCATE:

Roll no.- 106/19 Adv. Dinesh Goel

Section- B (Chamber no.-217, District Court

Semester- IX Complex, Sector 43, Chandigarh)

Period of Internship: 18th of July, 2023 to 18th of August, 2023

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Advocate Dinesh Goel sir, for
giving me a golden opportunity to intern under his able guidance. I perceive this
opportunity as a big milestone in my career development. He made understand
the actual working of courts and how the field of law is not limited to just a few
bare acts but is vast like an ocean.

Throughout the period of internship, I got acquainted with the actual working of
courtrooms since I was exposed to the reality of practice of law. I had a quite
enriching experience both practically and academically. Further, he provided me
all the important documents relating to his cases, by virtue of which I have been
able to complete my internship report.

Further, I would like to thank Dr. Sonal Datta Ma’am, Internship Incharge, who
made sure that students do not face any issues with respect to internship and was
always prompt in answering the queries of students.

I would also like to thank my friends and family members, who have helped me
in the completion of this report in one or the other way.

Ramandeep Kaur
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
106/19
Section-B
Semester-IX
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.no. Case Name Page no.

1. Anu Kumari v Daljinder Singh 1-4

2. State v Piyush Kumar Shah 4-8

 CIVIL CASE
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, CHANDIGARH

HMA No. ______of 2022

Anu Kumari aged 37 years D/o Sh. Baldev Singh, R/o House No. 2282, Mari Wala Town, Mani
Majra , Chandigarh.

…. Petitioner No. 1

AND

Daljinder Singh aged 35 S/o Sh. Najam Singh, R/o House No. 1801, Kothe Surga Puri , Doda,
Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

…. Petitioner No. 2

Date of institution of suit: 21st of July, 2022

Nature of Suit: Petition under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce
by mutual consent

Date of decision: 16th of August, 2023

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Petitioner no. 1 got married with petitioner no. 2 on 9th November, 2020 as per sikh
rites and ceremonies at Manimajra, Chandigarh.
2. After the marriage, the petitioner no. 1 went to her matrimonial home at 1801, Kothe Surga
Puri, Doda, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab to consummate the marriage. However, no issue
was born out of this wedlock.
3. Both the petitioners were residing separately since 1 st December, 2020 because of
temperamental differences and certain other reasons. The petitioners have realized that they
cannot live together any more, especially when all the reconciliation efforts by common
friend and relatives have failed to yield any result.
4. Therefore, it was mutually agreed by the petitioners to dissolve their marriage by a decree
of divorce by way of mutual consent .

1
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION

Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Divorce by mutual consent.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce
may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such
marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one
year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that
the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the
presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after
the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied,
after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been
solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the
marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

1. After agreeing to get divorce by mutual consent, the parties approached the counsel as
petitioners.
2. Since, the parties decided to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent, the present joint
petition has been filed by mutual consent of both the parties and the consent has not been
secured by any type of force, fraud or undue influence.
3. A compromise deed was executed on 2nd June, 2022 between the petitioners.
4. The Petitioner no. 2 agreed to pay Rs.3,25000/- to petitioner no. 1 as her permanent
alimony as full and final settlement amount.
5. Out of Rs.3,25000/-, Rs.1,62,500/- was paid by the petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no. 2 at
the time of recording of 1 st joint statement of both the petitioners on 23rd of September,
2022 in presence of Hon’ble Court and the remaining Rs.1,62,500/- were paid by the
petitioner no. 2 to petitioner no. 1 at the time of recording of second statement on 28th
March, 2023 in the above case as full and final settlement amount.

2
 6. Petitioner no. 1 had received the Stridhan. Now, all the disputes between both the
petitioners stand settled as full and final as per terms and conditions. There is no dispute
between petitioner no. 1 and 2.
7. It was decided that petitioner no. 1and 2 shall not initiate any proceedings of any type (Civil
or Criminal) against each other in future. The Petitioner no. 1 shall not claim any
maintenance for herself from the petitioner no. 2 or his family members in future except
the terms settled in the compromise deed or claim any right in the property which they may
acquire, including by the means of inheritance.

JUDGMENT

The court was satisfied as regard the genuineness of the plea of the parties. From the statements
recorded in the court, it emerged that the parties parted their ways and were living separately since
1/12/2020. The court stood satisfied that the parties had reached a point of no return and were not
able to live together and were continuously living apart. Hence, they mutually agreed to dissolve
the marriage and presented the said petition. The averments made in the petition are true and the
consent of the parties have not been obtained by force or fraud or undue influence. Therefore, on
16th August, 2023, the Hon’ble court allowed the petition and dissolved their marriage under
section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by mutual consent. In accordance to the same, decree
of divorce by mutual consent was passed and marriage was declared to be dissolved from the date
of decree.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Divorce by mutual consent is a legal process of separation, when both the husband and wife want to
separate with their own will after marriage. Both husband and wife can apply for the divorce by mutual
consent. It is the most civilized fastest and inexpensive termination of a marriage. In the instant case,
both the petitioners, despite putting their best efforts, they were unable to reconcile their marriage
and could not see themselves living together as husband and wife ever again. They fulfilled the
following essentials before filing joint petition in District Court for getting divorce by way of mutual
consent:

 The parties were living separately for one year (since 1/12/2020).
 They were not able to live together and reconcile their differences.

3
  They had mutually consented to dissolve their marriage

The part ies had entered in full and final understanding via a co mpromise deed and
The issues pertaining to alimony, properties etc. were settled among the parties. The Court made
inquiries for its satisfaction as to whether the marriage was solemnized and whether the averments
made in the petition are true. On being satisfied and taking into consideration, the statements of
the parties and the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the court has given an appropriate
order of dissolution of marriage.

CRIMINAL CASE
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK MARWAHA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
CHANDIGARH

Filing No.- 13290/20219

FIR No.-147 Dated-13th of October, 2020

Concerned provision- Section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Filing Date: 29th October, 2021

Case No.-5538/2021

Registration Date: 29th October, 2021

CNR No.- CHCH03-013291-2021

Date of Decision -25th July, 2023

Counsel for State- Learned APP Sh. Sukh Ram

Counsel for accused- Sh. Dinesh Goel

4
State

…. Petitioner

Vs

Piyush Kumar Shah

…. Respondent

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 12th of October, 2020, ASI Mohinder Singh received a telephonic intimation that a
person had got stuck under soil near 2503, DMC, Chandigarh.
2. Thereafter, ASI Mohinder Singh reached the spot and he was informed that injured person
was taken to Santokh Hospital, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. On reaching Santokh Hospital,
he was informed that injured person was referred to PGI, Chandigarh.
3. On reaching PGI, Chandigarh, ASI Mohinder Singh was informed regarding his death. The
name of deceased was told to be Manesh Yadav.
4. ASI Mohinder Singh also met Daroga Yadav, brother of deceased at PGI who gave a
statement to the effect that he along with his brothers namely, Raj Kishore Yadav and
Manesh Yadav were doing work of labour.
5. On the said date also, he along with his two brothers had gone to DMC, Chandigarh for
doing work of pipeline under the Site Manager namely Piyush. He told that they had asked
Manager Piyush to make some provision for stopping the soil from falling however he did
not pay any heed.
6. His brother, Manesh Yadav was doing the work of leveling the soil when huge chunk of
soil fell over him and he got buried thereunder. They tried to save him and take him out of
the soil.
7. He further stated that since Manesh Yadav was deep in the soil as such they asked the
driver of JCB, who was working at the site to remove the soil. While doing so the bucket
of JCB fell on Manesh Yadav and injured him.
8. Thereafter, he stated that injured Manesh Yadav was taken to hospital. On statement, FIR
was registered. During investigation, accused was arrested, rough site plan was prepared
and statements of witnesses were recorded.

5
 9. After necessary formalities and investigation, challan under section 173 Cr.P.C. was
presented in this Court against the accused.
10. From the perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., documents appended thereto,
statements of witnesses and other material placed on the record, a prima facie offence
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC was made out against the accused. Consequently,
charge under the said Section was framed against the accused.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION

Section 304A, IPC: Causing death by negligence. --Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

POINT OF DETERMINATION

Whether on 12.10.2020 at DMC, Chandigarh accused being the Manager of the Construction
Company hired the deceased namely Manesh Yadav for construction work and accused did not
provide any safety equipment to the deceased for doing his work and as such accused acted
negligently resulting into an accident, which caused death of Manesh Yadav not amounting to
culpable homicide and committed offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC?

EVIDENCE TENDERED

A number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was
closed. Statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C was recorded wherein entire incriminating
evidence was put to him. In defence, accused pleaded false implication and innocence and opted
to lead any defence evidence, however, he closed the defence evidence without leading any
evidence.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Stand of Petitiioner

 It was contended by the prosecution side that accused had hired deceased Manesh Yadav
for construction work and he did not provide any safety equipments to the deceased for

6
 doing the work and that he acted negligently which resulted into an accident causing death
of Manesh Yadav.
 To discharge its onus beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution examined PW-3, Dr. Dalip
Vaishnav, who has proved the postmortem examination report of Manesh Yadav. This
witness has proved the death of Manesh Yadav. For the purpose of proving that death was
caused negligently, the prosecution examined PW-1 Daroga Yadav and PW-2 Raj Kishore.

Stand of Respondent

 The Counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of
accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour
of the accused.
 Though in his examination-in-chief, the witness has supported the case of prosecution yet
in his cross-examination he has admitted it to be correct that there is no record in his
investigation that the death of Manesh Yadav occurred due to the negligence of accused in
present case.
 He has further admitted it to be correct that all the safety measures were provided by the
Contractor to his labourers during the entire construction work. He has gone to the extent
of admitting that the deceased suffered injuries due to the bucket of JCB.
Further, PW-1 Daroga Yadav and PW-2 Raj Kishore could have proved the prosecution
case beyond reasonable doubt however they have failed to support the case of prosecution
by stating that they do not know how the death of their cousin Manesh Yadav was caused.

JUDGMENT

On 25th of July, 2023, the court pronounced that the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial
onus of proving the case beyond every reasonable doubt. As such, guilt of accused is not proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, point of determination was
decided against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. Accordingly, accused Piyush was
acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In the instant case, the accused Piyush Kumar Shah faced trial under Section 304-A of IPC as it
was alleged by Daroga Yadav, brother of deceased that on 12.10.2020 at DMC, Chandigarh
accused being the Manager of the Construction Company hired the deceased namely, Manesh
Yadav for construction work and accused did not provide any safety equipment to the deceased
for doing his work and as such accused acted negligently resulting into an accident, which caused
death of Manesh Yadav. Here, the prosecution failed to elicit anything incriminating to prove its
case. PW-1,2 totally failed to support case of prosecution by stating that they do not know how the
death of their cousin Manesh Yadav was caused and thus, turned hostile. However, it has been
held in plethora of judgments that only because prosecution witness has resiled from his earlier
statement, is not a sufficient ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. Law to this
effect has been laid down by in case titled as Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2007(2) RCR
(Crl.) 227. Further, IO had admitted that all the safety measures were provided by the Contractor
to his laborers during the entire construction work and the deceased suffered injuries due to the
bucket of JCB. Therefore, it was for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to
must have. The prosecution appeared to be improbable. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has been
rightly given to the accused.