MANIKANTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false. On the other hand, it was a situation where the petitioner and the deceased had fallen in love and had married much against the wishes of the family of Geetha and hence, the family had been ostracized by the village on account of the petitioner having married Geetha against the wishes of her parents and the other members of the family. Therefore, she was never visiting her maternal home. During the 'Ashada maasa' however, the complainant had made a request to the mother of the petitioner to send Geetha home, as it was inauspicious for her to live along with her husband during the period. But since the petitioner's mother had refused, Geetha had been thrown into severe depression and she had committed suicide. There was neither a demand for dowry and there was also no possibility of the petitioner securing any dowry from Geetha's parents. Thus, the learned counsel would point out that except the complaint by the complainant, there is not even a single witness cited in support of the prosecution.