State vs 1. Dushyant Dixit S/O Virendu Dixit on 21 July, 2010
36. PW2 has corroborated the fact that deceased was from a very
poor family. He has deposed that he had told the family of the accused
persons that his family was poor and he would not be able to give dowry
in the marriage. Deceased was the daughter only that he had to give in
marriage. He has also deposed that he was having two bighas of land in
Village Jasmai and had only one room and courtyard in his house.
Learned Defence Counsel had sterneously argued that the accused
persons were enjoying a better financial status and were well of than the
family of the deceased, therefore, no question arises that they could have
demanded any dowry as they were aware about the financial condition
of PW2. But there is not much force in the said argument, as from the
suicide note Ex.P2, it is proved that the accused persons had
expectations for dowry for which she was harassed and taunted also.
Moreover, the parents and brothers of the deceased have specified those
demands. Even though there is contradiction in the testimony of PW2 on
one hand and PW3, PW12 & PW14 on the other hand, about the
quantum of amount paid to accused Dushyant Dixit for purchase of
SC No.127/09: State vs. Dushyant Dixit & Anr.