Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 have stated in one voice that the respondent was paid an amount of Rs. 250000/- at the time of marriage. Out of this amount Rs. 80000/- was paid in cash and other articles namely 20 tulas of gold and a Bajaj Scooter etc., were given at the time of marriage. PW 5 has also stated that in the Panchayat PW 2 told the panchas to have paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to the respondent-accused A1.

13. The learned appellate Court rejected the testimonies of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 on the ground that though PW 1 has stated that the amount of Rs. 85,000/- was paid at the time of her marriage, but in cross-examination she has stated that it was not given in her presence. It rejected the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 on the ground that first they stated that Rs. 85,000/- was paid in cash and 20 tulas of gold and one house plot of 3 guntas were given at the time of marriage, but later PW 2 stated in his deposition that the said amount of Rs. 85,000/- was paid at the time of betrothal and then changed his version and said that it was paid even before fixation of the marriage and drawing lagnapatrika, Ex. P8, dated 7-2-1988. There is addition of more articles in the complaint Ex. P7 when compared with the lagnapatrika Ex. P8. there is also no definite evidence as to whom out of the three accused persons, that is to say the accused A1, or A2 or A3, the dowry was paid. The appellate Court also took into consideration that PW 2 was equally liable for giving the dowry along with the respondent-accused A1. PWs. 1 and 2 first stated on oath that a house plot was given, but later changed their version and said that cash in lieu of the house plot was subsequently paid to A1. The third item of gold of 20 tulas was presented to PW 1 and not to the respondent-accused A1.