1 2026:CGHC:207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 255 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station, Sahaspur Lohara, District : Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Pramod Soni S/o Late Khunuwa Soni, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.12, Takhatpur, Police Station Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant :Shri Sachhidanad Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent :Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears along with Shri T.R. Patel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 02.01.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Criminal Appeal No.127/2018, whereby, while reversing the judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kawardha, District Kabirdham in Criminal Case No. 337/2018 has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.05 16:46:16 +0530 2 as well as under Section 323 of IPC. 2. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the marriage of the respondent- Pramod Soni was solemnized with one Divya Soni on 12.06.2015 and it was alleged by the prosecution that immediately after the solemnization of her marriage, she was harassed and maltreated by her mother-in-law, namely, Kiran, brother-in-law- Rajkumar, her husband and sister-in-law- Meena Soni on account of demand of dowry and it was alleged further that on 06.01.2018, she returned from her in-laws’ house and on the date of incident, i.e. 08.01.2018, her husband, the respondent herein, came at 6.00 pm for taking his wife and at the relevant point of time, he stated to his mother-in-law, namely, Pramila Soni, who lodged the report (Ex.P.-1), that he was in need of money and demanded the amount from her, owing to which, his wife- Divya Soni stated that how the money could be managed by her mother and, that upon hearing as such, he got annoyed and started misbehaving her, while using filthy words and that by threatening to kill, assaulted her with the aid of iron rod on her head, as a result of which, blood was oozing from her head and she became unconscious and, thereafter, he fled away and the alleged incident was seen by one Jitendra Sahu, Based upon the alleged report, lodged by his mother-in-law on 08.01.2018, an offence punishable under Sections 294, 506 and 324 of IPC was registered against the respondent- Pramod Soni and during the course of investigation, an iron rod was recovered from the spot on 10.01.2018 vide Ex.P-3 in presence of said Pramila Soni (PW-1) and one Jitendra Sahu(PW-4) and, his wife was examined medically by Dr. Sanjay Kharsan (PW-6) and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who, based upon the materials, has 3 framed the charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 324 IPC, while his mother- Kiran, brother- Rajkumar and his sister- Meena were charged under Section 498-A/34 IPC. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the wife of the respondent were not involved for the commission of the alleged offence and accordingly, they have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC, but, the respondent -Pramod Soni, the husband of the complainant’s daughter was held to be guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 and 323 IPC and, accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 498-A, while three months rigorous imprisonment along with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- under Section 323 IPC with default stipulation. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the respondent has preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, who, vide its impugned judgment has acquitted him from the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Perusal of the record would show that though the charge has been framed against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 and 324 IPC, but a bare perusal of an FIR (Ex.P-1), lodged by his mother-in-law, would, however, reveal the fact that on 08.01.2018, when he came to receive his wife- Divya Soni, he was in need of money and therefore, 4 he demanded the same from his mother-in-law, namely, Pramila Soni and his wife at the relevant point of time has raised an objection that how the amount could be managed by her mother, owing to which, he got annoyed and assaulted her with the aid of iron rod on her head, who sustained the injuries and blood was oozing from her head and became unconsicous and it appears further from the alleged report that one Jitendra Sahu (PW-4) had seen the alleged incident. No allegation, thus, appears to have been revealed from it that she was harrased or maltreated by them on demand of dowry. It appears further that though, it was stated by mother-in-law, wife and brother- in-law of the respondent in their testimonies that his wife was assaulted and maltreated by him on account of demand of dowry, but the alleged of their versions are, however, appears to be suspicious, else a prompt report to this effect must have been lodged immediately when she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws, as alleged, or could have been reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P.-1), lodged by said Pramila Soni. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of the demand of dowry. 6. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the alleged report (Ex.P.-1) that the alleged incident was seen by one Jitendra Sahu (PW-4), but from his (PW-4) statement, it appears that he has neither seen the alleged incident, nor the respondent was holding the iron rod as was alleged by the prosecution. That apart, when she was examined by Dr. Sanjay Kharsan (PW-6), who, however, stated very specifically that the alleged injuries caused on her head cannot be made by the iron rod, nor query report of the alleged weapon was made in order to ascertain as to whether the alleged injury could be caused by the said weapon. Having failed to produce any 5 cogent and reliable evidence to this effect, it cannot be said that the respondent was the author of the alleged crime, so as to held him guilty for it. 7. In view of above, the appeal, being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita