State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pramod Kumar Sharma
2026 Latest Caselaw 1115 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pramod Kumar Sharma on 30 March, 2026

                                      1




                                                      2026:CGHC:14727

                                                                    NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                           CRR No. 1104 of 2022
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
                                                     ... Applicant

                                   versus

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Shatruhan Sharma Aged About 19 Years Resident
Of Jagannathpur Sankra, Police Station Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ... Respondent

For Applicant-State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

For Respondent : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

30/03/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard

finally.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section

401 read with Section 397 of CrPC, 1973, being aggrieved with the

judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod,

District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.37/2021, whereby the

leaned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 16.09.2021 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in

Criminal Case No.577/2017 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pramod Sharma)

acquitting the accused of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

3. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant Dipiko Sharma was

married to the oppellant on 11.05.2013 and soon after the marriage the

appellant started harassing the complainant for not bringing sufficient

dowry and Car in the marriage. The cruelty and harassment was meted

out continuously to the complainant in mental and physical form and

ultimately the appellant threw out the complainant from the house.

4. A written complaint dated 24.12.2016 was lodged by the complainant

before the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District

Raipur stating in detail about the mental harassment and physical cruelty

meted out to her since her marriage by the appellant. On the said written

complaint subsequently the unnumbered FIR was registered at Police

Station Mahila Thana, Raipur and later on numbered FIR was registered

at Police Station Balod vide Crime No. 116/2017.

5. During the course of investigation the Police recorded the case diary

statement of the complainant who reiterated the allegations leveled in the

FIR. The statements of various other witnesses were also recorded who

confirmed and corroborated the version of the complainant. After

completing investigation the charge sheet was filed before the concerned

Jurisdictional Magistrate and subsequently charge was framed against

the appellant for offence under section 498A of I.P.C.

6. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The

prosecutrix PW-01 stated in detail about the mental and physical cruelty

to which she was subjected by the respondent for not bringing sufficient

dowry. All the other witnesses, including independent witnesses

supported and corroborated the version of the complainant.

7. Despite the fact that prosecution proved the charge under Section 498-A

of IPC beyond any reasonable doubt, the learned trial court without

appreciating the evidence available on record acquitted the respondent of

the charges vide its judgment dated 16.09.2021.

8. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal was challenged by the State by

preferring the appeal before the leaned Sessions Court. However, the

learned Sessions Judge, District Balod has upheld the judgment of

acquittal passed by the learned trial court without properly appreciating

the evidence tendered by the prosecution and the grounds raised in the

appeal.

9. The State is aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment dated

31.05.2022 Annexure A/1 passed by the learned appellate Court and

therefore prefer the instant revision petition.

10. Learned counsel for the State-applicant would submit that the impugned

judgment Annexure A/1 passed by the learned appellate Court is

erroneous and contrary to law. The learned courts below have utterly

failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its correct

perspective. He would further submit that the learned courts below have

committed serious error in not considering the evidence of the

complainant PW-01 which in itself is sufficient for proving the guilt of

the appellant. The learned courts below have failed to consider the

evidence tendered by the prosecution, which categorically proves the

basic ingredients for commission of the offence under Section 498-A of

I.P.C.

11. He would further submit that the learned courts below to failed to realize

that the complainant PW-01 has stated in detail about the manner in

which she was continuously harassed by the respondent soon after the

marriage. The complainant has further elaborately mentioned in detail

about the physical and mental cruelty meted out to her by the respondent

for not bringing sufficient dowry and Car in marriage. the learned courts

below to failed to realize that the complainant PW-01 has stated in detail

about the manner in which she was continuously harassed by the

respondent soon after the marriage. The complainant has further

elaborately mentioned in detail about the physical and mental cruelty

meted out to her by the respondent for not bringing sufficient dowry and

Car in marriage. The learned courts below have failed to realize that the

complainant hos remained intact during the entire examination of her

evidence which categorically proves the commission of the offence by

the respondent. The learned courts below have failed to consider the

evidence of other prosecution witnesses who have supported and

corroborated the version of the complainant and have stated about the

cruelty meted out by the respondent on the complainant. In view of the

evidence tendered by the prosecution, the finding recorded by the

learned courts below are liable to be set-aside by this court. It is,

therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that, this Court may

kindly be pleased to allow the instant Criminal Revision and to set aside

the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District

Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2021.

12. Learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the order passed

by the learned trial Court is just and proper needs no interference.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with

utmost circumspection.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission

made by learned counsel for the parties.

15. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned trial Court whereby the respondent has been

acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It

is well settled that an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal

against acquittal, should be slow in interfering with the findings recorded

by the trial Court unless the same are perverse, illegal, or based on mis-

appreciation of evidence.

16. On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, this Court finds

that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated both oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial Court has

assigned cogent and convincing reasons for disbelieving the prosecution

case and for extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent.

17. Though the complainant (PW-01) has made allegations of cruelty and

harassment on account of demand of dowry, her testimony does not

inspire full confidence in absence of material particulars and independent

corroboration on essential aspects. The evidence led by the prosecution

suffers from material inconsistencies and exaggerations, which have

been rightly taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.

18. It is further evident that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond

reasonable doubt, the essential ingredients constituting "cruelty" as

defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mere omnibus

and general allegations without specific instances of cruelty are

insufficient to bring home the charge against the respondent.

19. The respondent has placed a copy of judgment passed by the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.1100/2022 on

23.06.2023 which shows that the parties are separated by way of

dissolution of marriage with mutual consent under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955.

20. The view taken by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after a

proper appreciation of evidence, has arrived at a plausible and reasonable

conclusion. Therefore, this Court of the considered view that in light of

the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, no ground is

made out to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the

learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

21. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no

illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court as well

as First Appellate Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order

passed by the Courts below.

22. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable

to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant