MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 12 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the complainant is the father of the deceased, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner along with his father and mother had harassed the deceased for dowry and that the deceased had called her parents from her mobile and informed them about the same.

(2.) IT is further alleged that the death had occurred within a seven years of marriage and the provision of Section 304 -B had been invoked. The post -mortem, report opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.

(3.) IT is submitted by the petitioner's Counsel, that both, the family of the deceased and accused are coolies and neither of them is able to demand or pay any huge dowry and hence, the very allegation that the deceased was harassed by the accused for non -payment of dowry is totally false. The petitioner's Counsel would further submit that the deceased was unhappy with the marriage and that she was forced into marriage by her parents. He would submits that the cause of the unhappiness is that the petitioner is uneducated and has attended school upto second standard, whereas the deceased had completed her S.S.L.C. Course and she was highly disappointed with the match chosen by her parents. The petitioner's Counsel would further submit that the police have already filed a charge -sheet. He would also rely upon the post -mortem report to demonstrate that it is a case of suicide and that the petitioner had no role in it. He would further state that there is no finding that there were any other external injuries on the body of the deceased. The petitioner's Counsel would further submit that the distance between the residence of the complainant and the residence of the matrimonial house of the deceased is only 10 kms. He would further submit that the allegation in the complaint is that the decided had called her mother and told her that she is going to commit suicide is false. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that no mother who receives a call from a daughter saying that she is going to commit suicide would just sit back at home and allow the daughter to commit suicide, but, on the contrary, would have straight away made an attempt to rush to the aid of her daughter. He submits that the complaint against the petitioner is by grieving parents who have lost their daughter and there is not even iota of complaint. The contention of the Counsel merit consideration.