Vismaya Dowry Death: Husband Kiran Kumar Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Conviction & Sentence

Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case has approached the Kerala High Court challenging his conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court.

Justice Kauser Edappagath admitted the appeal and issued notice to the respondents. The matter will be taken up a month later. 

In an incident that shook the State last year, Vismaya, a 22-year-old Ayurveda medical student was found dead in her matrimonial home under mysterious circumstances allegedly of suicide, after she had complained of dowry harassment. The death happened within a year of their marriage and her husband was thereby arrested a day after the incident came to light. Kiran Kumar, who was an assistant motor vehicle inspector, was also dismissed from service following her death

The Kollam Additional District and Sessions Judge had recently convicted her husband under Sections 498A (subjecting a woman to cruelty for dowry), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 304B (dowry death) among others of the IPC and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment and a fine of ₹12.5 lakh. 

Alleging that the finding was perverse based on assumptions, conjunctures and surmises, the husband has preferred a criminal appeal through Advocate C. Prathapachandran Pillai.

It has been submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant demanded or accepted dowry in any manner. He has contended that the car was given to him as a gift and not dowry, and that the conversations relied on by the prosecution to prove that he claimed dowry are only 'references to his suggestions' of the gift which were requested from him.

"Any excitement or frustration or an opinion regarding a gift does not make it dowry. Statements taken in isolation disregarding the context is a perverse way of appreciation of evidence," the appeal reads. 

The appellant, therefore, argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any evidence of the unlawful demand and the failure to meet the same. 

Further, it has been submitted that there is no evidence referring to any wilful act to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to sustain any grave danger. He asserted that quarrels of other nature which may be impulsive or incidental do not attract Section 498A. The appeal also adds that from the evidence, it is seen that on most of the days, the couple led a normal life.

According to the appellant, the prosecution failed to show that he had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before the incident to raise a presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution's case was that there was a quarrel between the couple immediately before her death, but nothing more. 

It has been argued that despite the appellant giving reasonable explanations for all incriminating material, they were disregarded by the trial court as if the burden to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubts was on the defence. He added that contents of recorded phone calls and chats were erroneously taken as admissible and proof of facts and that inadmissible statements were admitted as dying declaration. 

The appeal contends that evidence was suppressed at the genesis of the case and that the FIS, FIR and even the facts are fabricated under pressure. It has also been submitted that almost all materials relied on by the prosecution were deliberately not subjected to investigation to deny the appellant default bail. 

Apart from alleging a biased investigation, the appellant has also argued that he was subjected to cruel vilification and media trial which was utilised by the investigation agency to cause prejudice to him in multiple ways. It has also been alleged that the sentence imposed on him was rather excessive and that he was not given the benefit of doubt or even the presumption of innocence at any stage of the proceedings. 

"Appellant has lost his job, reputation and life due to faulty investigation and perverse finding of the learned court," reads the appeal. 

Accordingly, he has argued that the conviction and sentence are not maintainable and need to be set aside. 

Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.