Refusing to accept the argument that there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage, the Kerala High Court recently observed that a subsequent demand is sufficient to attract punishment under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It refused to suspend a 10-year jail term awarded to the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case.
A 23-year-old Ayurveda medical student, Vismaya was found dead at her matrimonial house at Sasthamkotta in Kollam district on June 21, 2021. Her husband Kiran Kumar, a former assistant motor vehicle inspector, was convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in May for driving her to suicide by harassing her for dowry.
The bench, comprising Justices Alexander Thomas and Sophy Thomas, refused to accept the argument raised by Kumar that there was no demand for dowry before the marriage. Taking note of the material available on record, the court noted that the subsequent conduct on Kumar’s part showed that after marriage, he had abused and assaulted his wife for dowry.
The high court was hearing Kumar’s plea, seeking an interim order for the suspension of his 10-year sentence. The application was moved in a criminal appeal that he filed against his conviction and sentence.
Kumar claimed that his wife died by suicide because she was longing for a child and feared that she will not conceive without the blessings of her father, which she could not receive. Considering the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, however, the HC held that it had been proven that Vismaya was subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband.
The court also refused to grant any relief to Kumar in view of a mobile conversation that took place before the marriage, showing that he never demanded a car as dowry.
“If at all there was no demand prior to the marriage, the subsequent conduct from the part of the appellant as evidenced from documents and depositions of witnesses will clearly show that after marriage, he was abusing and assaulting the deceased on account of the car given and the deficit of gold ornaments given from her family,” the court said.
It held that the argument by Kumar’s counsel that there has to be an agreement at the time of marriage in view of the words, “agreed to be given”, occurring in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was not tenable.
“…the amended definition of dowry in Section 2 of the Act includes not only the period, before and at the time of marriage, but also the period subsequent to marriage,” the court said.
It refused to suspend Kumar’s sentence during the pendency of the appeal moved by him and held that there was no patent infirmity in the order of the trial court, which found him 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.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment