Patna High Court

Pramod SaoversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The conviction of the appellant under Section 498‑A IPC is set aside.

Summary

The appellant Pramod Sao appealed against his conviction under Section 498‑A of the IPC for alleged dowry‑related cruelty. The trial court had relied on the complainant’s testimony that the appellant demanded Rs.2,00,000 and a refrigerator and subjected her to assault and confinement. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found the complainant’s allegations to be general, inconsistent, and unsupported by corroborative material, especially given the contradictory testimony of her parents and the absence of medical proof. The court also noted that the attempt to murder under Section 307 was disbelieved due to lack of independent witnesses. Consequently, the conviction under Section 498‑A was held unsafe and set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the elements of cruelty under Section 498‑A against the appellant
Whether the alleged dowry demand and assault constitute an offence under Section 498‑A
Whether the contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and lack of corroboration render the conviction unsafe
Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects the credibility of the prosecution case

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 341, 498-A, 504

Subjects

dowry harassment
cruelty to wife
Section 498-A
conviction set aside
evidence credibility
criminal appeal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.35 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2011 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Pramod Sao, Son of Rajendra Sao, Resident of Village- Khandpar, P.S.-
Sheikhpura, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Khalid Anwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 22-01-2026

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

17.12.2013, passed by the Court of the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial Case No. 338 of

2012 / G.R. No. 543 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for

the said offence.

Prosecution Story

2. The substance of the prosecution case, as emerging

from the complaint filed by the complainant, is as follows:

The complainant’s marriage was solemnized with the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
2/14

on 16.07.2010, and at the time of marriage her parents gifted her

ornaments and cash amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-. After marriage,

she went to her matrimonial home (sasural) and lived there for

about one month, whereafter she returned to her parental home

(naihar). Subsequently, she was brought back to her sasural by

the appellant in the month of January, 2011, and since then she

started residing there. In the meantime, the appellant, his father,

mother, two brothers-in-law namely Sonu Sao and Subodh Sao,

sister-in-law Lalita Devi, and the husband of the said sister-in-

law started assaulting her on account of demand of Rs.

2,00,000/- and a refrigerator. The complainant further alleged

that when such demand was made, she informed her in-laws that

her parents had already spent a substantial amount in her

marriage and that she was unable to fulfil their demand. Due to

her refusal, all the accused persons allegedly started assaulting

her, stopped providing her food, and confined her in a room. The

said torture continued for some time, which she endured. The

complainant further alleged that on 18.06.2011, at about 7:00

A.M., all the accused persons attempted to kill her by trying to

set her on fire. She raised an alarm, and upon hearing her cries,

the neighbours residing in the same mohalla gathered at the spot.

Thereafter, she managed to escape from the clutches of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
3/14

accused persons and went to Sheikhpura Civil Court, where her

father was working, and narrated the entire incident to him.

Thereafter, her father went alone to the house of the accused to

complain about their conduct, but the accused remained adamant

in their demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a refrigerator and told him

that they would keep the complainant in their house only upon

fulfilment of the said demand. Her father was abused and ousted

by the in-laws. Subsequently, the complainant was brought by

her father to her parental home, and the entire incident was

narrated to the relatives.

3. The complainant further alleged that on 27.06.2011,

her father again went to the house of the accused along with

Sarju Sao, Ram Autar Sao, Sarwan Sao, and Satyanarayan Sao

to make understand the accused, but they did not agree. The

accused did not even allow them to sit in the house and

remained adamant in their demand. Ultimately, her father and

his companions returned. Thereafter, on 28.06.2011, they went

to Sheikhpura Police Station to lodge an FIR, but the S.H.O. did

not take any action and advised them to approach the Court.

Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint, which was

forwarded to the police for investigation.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a formal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
4/14

FIR bearing Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 180 of 2011 was

registered for the offences under Sections 341, 498-A, 307 and

504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act (in short, “D.P. Act”) against the appellant and five others,

which set the criminal law in motion.

5. After investigation, the appellant and his family

members, namely Sonu Sao, Subodh Sao and Rajendra Sao,

were charge-sheeted, while the remaining named accused were

exonerated by the police and not sent up for trial. The appellant

was separately charged for the offences under Sections 498-A

and 307 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. Since

the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is triable exclusively

by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions for trial.

6. Though the appellant was charged separately

however he and the other three accused persons, namely

Rajendra Sao, Subodh Sao and Sonu Sao, who were tried jointly,

were jointly charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and

307 of the IPC, both read with Section 34 of the IPC. The

charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi by the

trial court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
5/14

7. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether

twelve witnesses, whose details are as under:

Sl. No. Name Relevancy
P.W.1 Om Prakash Father of the informant
P.W.2 Shyam Devi Mother of the informant
P.W.3 Gita Devi Complainant
P.W.4 Ram Autar Sao Independent witness
P.W.5 Bablu Mahto Independent witness
P.W.6 Sarwan Sao Independent witness
P.W.7 Ramashray Mahto Independent witness
P.W.8 Ravi Prakash Independent witness
P.W.9 Pramod Thakur Independent witness
P.W.10 Satya Narayan Sao Uncle of the complainant
P.W.11 Sarawan Sao Independent witness
P.W.12 Ashok Kumar Yadav S.H.O. and Investigating Officer

8. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved

and exhibited only the FIR, which was marked as Exhibit-1.

9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the

prosecution evidence. The appellant did not adduce any

evidence in his defence.

10. So far as the other co-accused persons who faced

trial along with the appellant are concerned, the trial court

concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges

against them and accordingly acquitted them of the charged

offences. While arriving at the conclusion with regard to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
6/14

alleged offences against the appellant, the trial court disbelieved

the allegation relating to the attempt to burn the complainant by

pouring kerosene oil upon her and, consequently, acquitted the

appellant of the charged offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

However, while fastening criminal liability upon the appellant

for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the trial court

observed that the appellant was legally obliged to maintain his

wife with dignity, but he neither made any attempt to resume the

matrimonial relationship between the year 2011 and 2013 nor

took steps to bring the complainant back to her matrimonial

home by approaching the competent court. The trial court

further observed that the complainant was compelled to live

away from her matrimonial home due to ill-treatment meted out

to her by the appellant. However, while arriving at such

conclusion, the trial court did not specifically refer to the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It further observed that

the informant did not make any allegation regarding demand or

torture against her father-in-law and brothers-in-law and,

considering this aspect, acquitted them of all the charged

offences including the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

11. Mr. Md. Khalid Anwar, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, submits that in the entire complaint the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
7/14

complainant did not disclose any specific role of the appellant in

connection with the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a

refrigerator or the physical and mental torture for non-fulfilment

of the said demand. According to learned counsel, the

allegations levelled against the appellant are general and

omnibus. It is further submitted that before the trial court the

complainant improved her version and that there exists a vital

contradiction between the testimony of P.W.-3 (the

complainant/informant) and that of her parents, P.W.-1 and P.W.-

2. As per the complainant’s case and the averments made in the

complaint, the alleged incidents of torture and demand of dowry

had come to the knowledge of her parents; however, before the

trial court, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 did not support such version and

rather deposed that the main reason for institution of the case

was misunderstanding between the spouses and that the

complainant never complained of torture to them. It is further

contended that the alleged incident of attempt to burn the

complainant occurred on 18.06.2011 and came to the knowledge

of her father on the same date, but the complaint was filed on

29.06.2011, and there is no plausible explanation for the delay

of 11 days in initiating legal action. Such unexplained delay,

according to learned counsel, creates serious doubt about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
8/14

prosecution case. It is also submitted that except the bald

statement of the complainant, there is no corroborative material

or evidence to substantiate the allegation of attempt to kill her.

12. Per contra, Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, submits that although

the evidence of the complainant’s parents may not be fully

corroborative, they admitted the factum of compromise between

the parties, and perhaps due to such compromise they did not

fully support the prosecution case. It is contended that in their

chief-examination they accepted the fact of ill-treatment meted

out to their daughter by the appellant. Learned APP further

submits that the complainant remained consistent with the

allegations made in her complaint while deposing before the

trial court and that there is sufficient evidence, particularly in the

testimony of the complainant and her uncle, to support the

allegation of dowry demand and cruelty committed by the

appellant. According to learned APP, the trial court rightly

appreciated the evidence on record while convicting the

appellant under Section 498-A of the IPC and there is no

illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, the

appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

13. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
9/14

both sides, perused the impugned judgment, carefully examined

the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and also taken into

consideration the statement of the appellant. In the complaint,

the complainant/informant attributed a role to the appellant in

the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a refrigerator and in

subjecting her to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the said demand.

However, the allegations levelled in the complaint against him

are general and omnibus in nature. Before the trial court, the

complainant in her examination-in-chief deposed that after

marriage she went to her sasural and lived there for about one

month and thereafter returned to her naihar, where she continued

to live. She further stated that after six months she again went to

her sasural. These statements show inconsistency regarding the

duration of her stay at her matrimonial home. She further

deposed that she was assaulted by her in-laws and was ousted

from the house and that her brother-in-law and mother-in-law,

namely Manti Devi, demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and a refrigerator.

Subsequently, she stated that the said demand was made by the

appellant. However, in the complaint, the allegation of demand

was levelled against all the accused persons named therein,

whereas before the trial court she remained silent regarding the

role of some of the accused. She further deposed that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
10/14

17.06.2011 she was assaulted and ousted from her in-laws’

house and that the accused attempted to kill her. However, she

did not make any specific allegation in this regard in her

examination-in-chief and introduced, for the first time in her

cross-examination, the allegation that the accused, including the

appellant, attempted to burn her by pouring kerosene oil upon

her. In her cross-examination, the complainant (PW-3) stated

that her father-in-law, brother-in-law, and the wife of her

brother-in-law were residing at Patna, where they had their

business and residence, and that they had been living there even

since prior to her marriage. She also stated that her sister-in-law,

who was named as an accused in the complaint, was a married

woman residing mostly at her own sasural and had children.

From these statements, it can be inferred that several accused

persons, who were equally implicated in the complaint, were

residing elsewhere and had little or no occasion to subject the

complainant to cruelty. The general and omnibus allegations

made against them were disbelieved by the trial court, and

consequently they were acquitted. So far as the allegation of

physical cruelty by the appellant is concerned, the complainant

stated in her cross-examination that prior to filing the complaint

she had visited her naihar twice and had marks of violence on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
11/14

her body for which she was treated by a doctor. However, she

failed to produce any medical prescription or document to

substantiate such treatment. Further, the complainant’s own

parents remained silent regarding any such physical cruelty in

their deposition before the trial court, and thus there is no

corroboration to support her allegation. The appellant and the

co-accused were charged under Sections 307 and 498-A read

with Section 34 of the IPC. Although the allegation of attempt to

murder in the complaint was general and omnibus, before the

trial court the complainant attributed a specific role to co-

accused Sonu Sao, her mother-in-law Manti Devi, and the

appellant. However, the allegation was common against all of

them and the trial court disbelieved the allegation under Section

307 of the IPC against all accused, including the appellant. The

complainant stated that while the accused were attempting to set

her on fire, neighbours gathered and saved her. However, the

Investigating Officer did not examine any of the neighbours, nor

was any such witness produced by the prosecution. Thus, except

the bald statement of the complainant, there is no evidence to

substantiate the allegation. Though the allegation under Section

307 of the IPC was disbelieved by the trial court, it nevertheless

casts a serious doubt on the credibility of the complainant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
12/14

regarding the remaining allegations. The complainant also

alleged that she was confined in a room and tortured. As per her

testimony, the house of her in-laws was situated near the main

road and voices from inside the house could be heard outside.

The testimony of her father reveals that he used to pass through

the same road while going to his office and used to meet his

daughter every one or two weeks. Despite this, the complainant

never informed her father about the alleged confinement and

torture, and her father remained silent on this aspect. This

circumstance also goes against the prosecution case.

14. During the relevant period, the complainant’s

father was an employee of the Sheikhpura Civil Court, and

therefore, it can be presumed that he had sufficient opportunity

to initiate legal proceedings. Admittedly, the last alleged

incident took place on 18.06.2011, whereas the complaint was

filed on 29.06.2011. Regarding this delay of 11 days, the

complainant stated that on 27.06.2011 her father went to the

house of her in-laws along with some persons to persuade the

accused. However, some of those persons were examined by the

prosecution and all of them turned hostile and did not support

the said attempt and explanation. Therefore, the explanation for

delay mentioned in paragraph 5 of the complaint is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
13/14

believable and does not find corroboration from material

witnesses. Although in cases under Section 498-A of the IPC,

the testimony of the victim is of significance, such cruelty

ordinarily comes to the knowledge of the victim’s parents only

when communicated to them. In the present case, according to

the complainant herself, all alleged incidents were within the

knowledge of her father. However, PW-1 (father), in his cross-

examination, stated that the case was lodged due to

misunderstanding between the spouses and that his daughter

never complained of torture. He further stated that no demand of

dowry was ever made. The complainant’s mother (PW-2) also

gave similar evidence. Thus, the testimony of the complainant’s

own parents contradicts her version. In view of these above

discussed contradictory circumstances and the evidence on

record, particularly the testimony of the complainant’s parents, it

would not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant

under Section 498-A of the IPC. The approach adopted by the

trial court in convicting the appellant does not inspire the

confidence of this Court.

15. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 17.12.2013, passed in Sessions Trial Case No.

338 of 2012 / G.R. No. 543 of 2011, are hereby set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.35 of 2014 dt.22-01-2026
14/14

16. The appeal is allowed.

17. The appellant is presently on bail. Accordingly, his

bail bonds are cancelled forthwith, and he along with his sureties

is discharged from their respective liabilities.

18. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy

of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court

concerned for compliance and necessary action.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

Rajiv/.-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.01.2026
Transmission Date 28.01.2026
.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…