The judgment establishes the legal principles for proving dowry death under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and upholds the legal presumption of dowry death based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Sahai, assisted by Mr. Bhavya Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA-I for the State. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant, Rajesh Jha against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 854 of 2009, State vs. Rajesh Jha, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 304-B, I.P.C. three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in case of default in payment of fine, three months additional simple imprisonment under Section 498A, I.P.C. one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in case of default in payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Upon being charge-sheeted, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad committed the accused Rajesh Jha for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad where the case was registered as S.T. No. 854 of 2009, State v. Rajesh Jha and made over for trial from there to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad who on the basis of the material on record and after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused on the point of charge, framed charge under Sections 498-A, 120-B, 304-B, I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused abjured the charges framed against him and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused examined six witnesses out of whom PW-1 Krishna Madhav Jha was examined as witness of fact while PW-2 Dr. Anil Prakash, PW-3 Jai Prakash Yadav, Naib Tehsildar, PW-4 Rahul Srivastava, Circle Officer, PW-5 Dinesh Kumar, Head Moharrir and PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kumar Goyal were produced as formal witnesses.

4. The prosecution in addition to oral evidence, adduced documentary evidence as well, which has been referred to and dealt with in great detail by the Trial Court and which need not be reproduced herein and to which we shall refer to as and when the context so requires.

5. After closing of the prosecution case, the statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. He stated that he had never tortured or maltreated his wife Anuradha for additional dowry or otherwise. He stated that she was ambitious and short-tempered and wanted to work. Since, his financial condition was good enough and he had small children, he had forced her to quit her job on account of which his wife had committed suicide. He examined Rajesh Jha, Deepak Yadav and Dr. Nishar as DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3.

6. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad after considering the submissions advanced before him by learned Counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellant and awarded aforesaid sentences to him.

7. Hence, this appeal.

8. The appellant had challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2012 before this Court by means of this appeal, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J. and Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J. (as His Lordship then was) vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2015. The operative portion of the order dated 27.7.2015 runs as hereunder:

"Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 18.10.2012 are set aside. The Sessions Trial No. 854 of 2009, State v. Rajesh Jha, is remanded back to the Trial Court with the direction that a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. also be framed against the present appellant and thereafter the Trial Court may proceed in accordance with provisions contained in Section 216, Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to ensure presence of the witnesses in advance and proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis. We expect that efforts should be made to conclude the t