Shivani Thakur
Published on: May 26, 2022 at 20:32 IST
A Kerala Court, while convicting and sentencing the husband of Vismaya made some pertinent observations regarding the manner in which lives are shattered by the menace of Dowry.
“He was bound to protect his wife and he was capable to do that. However, he had chosen a different decision to taunt and harass his wife. His wife was also having dreams.”
“She might have entered into the family life with good hope and great expectations. But the menace of dowry dashed all her aspirations. Wife is not a chattel in the hands of the husband. She has her own dignity and individuality,” the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kollam, Sujith KN said.
The Judgement stated that, “Whilst her sufferings, once Vismaya had suspected: whether she is a valueless commodity? That bespeaks her miseries in the life.”
“She thought, through her matrimony, she may not get a bright future, but she was forced to swallow the bitter pill. Ultimately, she embraced the decision of ending her life.”
In the case registered against Kiran Kumar, after his wife Vismaya’s apparent suicide, Kumar was charged with commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 323, 498A and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Court said that close family and friends of Vismaya had no reason to depose with any false intentions.
“Only if there is a marital discord, an element of animosity will sprout in their mind and all of them uniformly attributed that, the aspiration of dowry was the root cause for the harassment and taunting on Vismaya.”
Several instances of cruelty unleashed by the accused on Vismaya were deposed by these witnesses in a confidence inspiring manner before this Court. Their evidences are supported by digital evidences furnished by the prosecution,” the Court stated.
“When the possibility to get the maker in flesh and blood to depose before the Court is completely vanished due to her death, the next endeavor should be how to include the statement of said individual within the sweep of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act,” the Court stated.
“Certainly, he has an excellent educational background and earned a government employment during his prime age. Therefore, the chances of reformation cannot be ruled out and remorse can occur on passage of time. He can recognize his mistakes and can reform himself”, the Court said.