The central legal point established in the judgment is the direct nexus between harassment for dowry and the deceased's suicide, leading to the appellant's conviction under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No.686 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.591 of 2007, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur, whereby the appellant Dinesh Kumar has been convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 of I.P.C. and also under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. However, it appears that no separate sentence has been awarded for the offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2018. Thereafter, the appellant had preferred Criminal Appeal No.1034 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3694 of 2019 (Dinesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.07.2019, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case is that the informant filed application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. with the averments that his daughter Geeta Chaudhary (deceased) was married to Dinesh Kumar (appellant) on 13.02.2006 and he gave cash of Rs.1,40,000/-and also gave household articles of the same amount. After the marriage the deceased went to her in-laws' house, the in-laws of the deceased namely Tulsi Ram (father-in-law), Mukesh, Shyam Lal and Guddu (brothers-in-law) and Badka (mother-in-law) were not satisfied with the dowry, therefore, they started taunting the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased called her father (the informant), whereupon the informant along with other family members who went to the house of appellant and tried to pacify the matter, but the in-laws of the deceased had demanded a Maruti car in dowry. It is further alleged that when the informant had shown his inability in giving a Maruti car, the above persons demanded cash of Rs.1,00,000/-and threatened that if the said amount would not be paid, then his daughter (deceased) will be killed. Thereafter, the informant arranged Rs.50,000/-and helped the appellant to purchase a second hand Maruti car and for sometime the matter remained pacify. It is also alleged that on 25.06.2007 the appellant along with the deceased came to the newly constructed house of informant on the occasion of Grih Pravesh ceremony and she told that all the accused persons including the appellant were demanding a Maruti car on which the informant said that he will talk to her in-laws after Griha Pravesh ceremony. It is further stated that on 26.06.2007 at about 3:00 P.M. the appellant pressurized the informant for sending back the deceased to her matrimonial house. It is also alleged that after bringing the deceased to his house the appellant assaulted and killed her and hanged her dead body with the roof of the room giving a colour of suicide. It is further stated that at 6:00 PM in the evening the appellant informed the informant that the suicide was committed by the deceased. Thereafter, the informant along with his family members and relatives reached to the house of appellant and found that the room of the deceased was closed from inside and when the room was opened the informant and her family members found that the deceased was hanging from the roof of the room. It is also alleged that the appellant and his family members threatened the informant that if he will inform the police then his sons would also be killed like her daughter and the appellant and his family members took signature of the informant on the bl