Kerala High Court rejects Kiran Kumar's story that rift with father, foiled expectation of pregnancy caused Vismaya to commit suicide

The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to suspend the 10-year sentence imposed on Kiran Kumar for the sensational dowry death of his wife, 23-year-old Vismaya, observing that doing otherwise would send a wrong message to society at a time when matrimonial atrocities are on the rise. [Kiran Kumar S v State of Kerala].A division bench of Justices Alexander Thomas and Sophy Thomas found that there was no patent infirmity in the order of the trial court which had found Kumar guilty of committing offences punishable under Sections 498A (subjecting a woman to cruelty for dowry), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.The bench rejected Kumar's contention that Vismaya committed suicide because her father had refused to respond to her calls or that she had committed suicide because she desperately wanted to get pregnant but got her periods on the same day."The story put forward by the applicant/appellant that her father did not respond to her messages, menstruation against her expectation of pregnancy etc. are not sufficient enough, in normal human parlance, for a 23 year old girl, to end her life, if she was living happily with her husband," the order said..[Vismaya Dowry Death] "Menace of dowry dashed all her aspirations:" Kerala court's judgment explained.Referring to the definition of the term "Dowry" under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court also rejected the Kumar's argument that even though there was no demand for a different car or more gold before the marriage, the offence under Section 304B of the IPC, would not be attracted."The definition itself shows that any property or valuable security, given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage or by parents of either parties to the 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 is dowry. So even if there was no property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before the marriage, it can be even at any time after the marriage also," the order stated.In the present case, the Court opined that even if there was no dowry demand prior to the wedding, Kumar's subsequent conduct as evidenced by documents and witnesses, clearly showed that after the wedding, he had been abusing and assaulting Vismaya on account of his dissatisfaction with the car and the amount of gold that her family had given him. .Therefore, the Court refused to suspend Kumar's sentence during the pendency of the appeal moved by him as well as the appeals for enhancement of sentence moved by the State prosecution and Vismaya's father..Kumar was represented by advocate Prathapachandran Pillai.Special Government Pleader for women and children, advocate Ambika Devi, appeared for the State.Advocate S Rajeev appeared for Vismaya's father. .[Read Order]