Amith Kumar, 47, was found guilty by a jury on Sept. 25 of viciously murdering his wife. He was convicted of first-degree murder and using a dangerous weapon, intent to injure.
He faced charges of first- and second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and openly carrying a dangerous weapon with intent to injure in connection with the death of his wife, Ankita Verma, 29, before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Michael A. DiPietro.
Before closing arguments, the judge addressed an issue concerning the jury’s verdict sheet. Defense attorney, Judit Otvos requested that involuntary manslaughter be added as an option, arguing that evidence presented throughout the trial could support that lesser charge.
The prosecution objected, but the judge agreed that involuntary manslaughter should be considered after researching the legal definition of the term.
However, he added, if that charge is added, the instructions should also consider the greater crime of depraved-heart murder, but ultimately the verdict sheet itself remained unchanged.
The defense attorney reserved her objection for a potential appeal.
According to court documents, officers responded to Kumar’s apartment at the 6700 block of Holabird Avenue on Jan. 11, 2019, and discovered his wife Ankita Verma, 29, suffering from multiple stab wounds.
The prosecution argued the facts were straightforward because Kumar earlier testified that he killed his wife. Prosecutors reviewed the evidence surrounding the crime scene photos taken of Ms. Verma’s body after there was no response at the couple’s residence. Their concerns led the landlord to enter the home, where he discovered the crime scene.
According to the prosecution, all tested blood found inside the residence belonged to Ms. Verma. The victim suffered 55 sharp-force injuries, and prosecutors emphasized testimony indicating hemorrhaging in the wounds. They argued that this showed that Ms. Verma was alive when all injuries were inflicted.
The prosecution rejected Kumar’s account that Ms. Verma was stabbing herself before locking herself in the bedroom. Prosecutors argued that the blood evidence, including blood on both sides of the bedroom door, demonstrated that she was attempting to escape and protect herself. They also pointed to the absence of hesitation wounds, injuries through clothing, and wounds to areas commonly associated with immediately fatal injuries as evidence inconsistent with suicide.
The prosecution further focused on Kumar’s actions after the killing. They argued that he washed the knife, left the residence, took a taxi toward Washington, D.C., and continued traveling toward New York and Vermont before attempting to flee to Canada. Prosecutors argued that these actions were inconsistent with someone who had just discovered his wife had taken her own life.
Motive was also central to the prosecution’s argument. They said Kumar learned his wife had an affair months before the killing and subsequently installed surveillance cameras because he did not trust her. Prosecutors argued that additional time gave him an opportunity to plan the killing.
They also challenged Kumar’s claim that he was too intoxicated to think clearly, noting that he initially told police he had consumed only one beer and a shot. The prosecution emphasized that there was no evidence to support his level of intoxication at the time of the killing.
In response, Otvos argued that the prosecution had failed to eliminate reasonable doubt. She accused the state of relying heavily on graphic photographs and repeatedly showing the same injuries rather than providing definitive evidence about exactly how the incident unfolded.
The defense challenged the prosecution’s claim that Ms. Verma was alive for all 55 injuries, arguing that there was no way to establish that every wound was inflicted while she was alive.
Otvos also disputed the prosecution’s portrayal of the five-month period before the killing as evidence of planning, Noting Kumar had traveled to India following his father’s death and had just found out of his wife’s affair. According to defense, Kumar wanted to separate and divorce rather than plan his wife’s death.
The defense argued that the evidence supported partial self- defense and involuntary manslaughter, maintaining that Kumar was not the initial aggressor because Ms. Verma had a knife and was threatening him. Otvos also argued that alcohol and marijuana may have affected Kumar’s judgement and memory.
The defense pointed to unanswered questions involving the bedroom door, surveillance footage, and blood evidence that was not tested. These gaps, she argued, prevented the state from proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In rebuttal, prosecutors argued that the physical evidence provided a clearer account of the incident than Kumar’s claimed lack of memory. They described evidence indicating Ms. Verma attempted to defend herself, including severe injuries to her fingers as she tried to stop the knife.
Prosecutors argued that blood throughout the residence, including on a suitcase and a stool, showed that Ms. Verma attempted to escape and protect herself as Kumar continued attacking her.
The prosecution also rejected arguments that Kumar’s language difficulties prevented him from understanding the proceedings, noting that he had two attorneys and access to an interpreter.
The prosecutor concluded by asking the jury to conclude that Kumar was guilty of first-degree murder.
The case is in the hands of the jury.
