Rvd vs State of U.P. and Another

Reserved On:- 22.09.2025 Delivered On:- 04.11.2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2064 of 2024

Rvd	.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Anurag Mishra, Nitin Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
In Chamber

¶4

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

¶5

Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, no on has turned up to oppose this revision.

¶6

Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for State and perused the trial court record.

¶7

The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.04.2024 passed by ASJ/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 2 Prayagraj in criminal appeal No. 20 of 2023 RVD son of Late Chhote Lal Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and impugned order dated 19.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj by the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj has committed the RVD son of Late Chhote Lal Dubey (Child in conflict with law) in case No. 386 of 2014 arising out of case crime No. 674 of 2014 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj.

¶8

The prosecution story in brief is that the first informant, Achyutanand Pandey s/o Ramsakha Pandey, made an application at police station stating that around a year ago he and the other victims came into contact with Vinay Dubey, Abhay Dubey, Chetan Dubey, the child RVD (revisionist) and Kumari Aarti Devi, who resided at Plot No. 4, Dubey Talaab, Naini with the help of their friend, Vimal Pandey, deceased. Chetan and RVD told them that their father and they are

¶9

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶10

2

¶11

employed in the railways. Their brothers, Abhay and Vinay, have also been given job by the railways. They also told them that if they provide them money then they will soon get them job in the railways. The complainant took money from their relatives and family members for the aforesaid purpose. Accused, RVD, Chetan, Abhay and Aarti, told them that they would be given job of a T.C in the railways for which the price is Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) per person. In pursuance to the above assurance, the complainants paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) on 10.08.2013 at Khan Chowraha, Naini Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) on 14.11.2013 at the gates of Agriculture University, Naini, Rs. 8,00,000/(Eight Lakhs) on 03.01.2014 at Khan Chowraha, Naini and a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) was paid to Aarti Devi on 10.01.2024 at the gates of Agriculture University, Naini. Except the last installment (which was taken by Aarti Devi alone), all the installments were taken by all the accused, including RVD. The complainants had paid a total sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty One Lakhs) and rest Rs. 11,00,000 /- (Eleven Lakhs) was decided to be paid after appointments. The accused, including RVD would call them from different numbers and they also took them for their medical examination to Chittaranjan and Muzaffarpur. The appointment letter and identity cards were given to Vijay Krishna by Aarti Devi, to Achyutanand by Abhay, to Lalbabu by Chetan and to Vijayshankar Mishra by Vinay. They also said that they have been given a job by the railways and soon they would start receiving salaries. When the complainants went to the designated places, as mentioned in the appointment letters, they were told that all the appointment letters are forged. When they came back and contacted the accused, they meet them and assured them that would soon pay them back all the money. They have not yet paid back any money and now the complainants are convinced that they have been cheated. The accused have also threatened them. Hence, F.I.R was lodged as against Vinay Dubey, Abhay Dubey, Chetan Dubey, the child RVD s/o Late Chhotelal Dubey and Kumari Aarti d/o Late Chhotelal Dubey under the relevant sections of I.P.C.

¶12

After the investigation, charge sheet was filed as against Vinay Dubey and RVD under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. Cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 05.12.2014. The inquiry as against RVD was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj and he was declared juvenile vide order dated 21.11.2014. The statement of RVD under Section 251 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.01.2015 wherein he stated that the prosecution story is false and

¶13

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶14

3

¶15

concocted and he has been implicated due to enmity. The prosecution has examined Achyutanand Pandey s/o Ramsakha Pandey as P.W.-1; Vijaykrishna Pandey s/o Late Lalta Prasad, as P.W.-2; H.C., Ravi Prakash Shukla s/o Late Ramnaresh Shukla as P.W.-3 and I.O., Shyam Dev Singh as P.W.-4 in the as prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has also relied upon Call Letter (Exhibit Ka-1), Fitness Certificate (Exhibit Ka-2), Appointment Letter (Exhibit Ka- 3), Fee slip (Exhibit Ka-4), Verification Letter (Exhibit Ka-5), Tehrir (Exhibit Ka-6), Medical Letter (Exhibit Ka-7), Appointment Letter (Exhibit Ka-8), Salary paper (Exhibit Ka-9), Verification Letter (Exhibit Ka-10), Residential Proof Certificate (Exhibit Ka-11), Posting Letter (Exhibit Ka-12), Pay Slip (Exhibit Ka-13), F.I.R (Exhibit Ka-14), G.D. Entry (Exhibit Ka-15), Chargesheet (Exhibit Ka-16) and Site map (Exhibit Ka-17) as documentary evidence.

¶16

The opportunity of the prosecution to lead evidence was closed vide order date 15.10.2022. Thereafter, the statement of RVD under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded vide order dated 11.11.2022 wherein he stated that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He does not knows P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and he has not taken any money from them. He also stated that he has been implicated falsely and does not wishes to lead any defence evidence. Thereafter the opportunity of lead defence evidence was closed.

¶17

The rival contentions of the parties were heard at length and the record is perused. The burden of proof the offence lies on the prosecution. The prosecution must bring home the charges levelled against RVD beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶18

At this juncture, it would be pertinent to discuss the evidence led by the prosecution. First and foremost, P.W.-1, Achyutanand Pandey s/o Ramsakha Pandey, was examined before the Juvenile Justice Board. This witness has stated in the examination-in-chief that in the year 2013, Abhay Dubey, Vinay Dubey, Chetan Dubey, the child RVD and Kumari Aarti Dubey told him that Abhay, Vinay and their father are working in the railways. They further informed that if he is able to arrange money then they would ensure that he gets a job with the railways. They said that they can get a job of a T.C in the railways if they pay them money to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakh) per candidate. It is further stated that P.W.-1 and the other complainants arranged money by taking loan from their relatives and selling off their

¶19

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶20

4

¶21

lands. Thereafter, Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid on 10.08.2013, money was also paid on 14.11.2013, Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid on 03.01.2014. It is further stated that all the accused came on four wheeler. It is further stated that a letter (Exhibit Ka-1) was given to him by Abhay Dubey. The accused also took him to Chittaranjan and Muzaffarpur for conducting his medical examination where he was given fitness certificate (Exhibit Ka-2). It is further stated that when he went to places mentioned in the appointment letter, he was told that the appointment letter is forged. When he came back and tried to contact the accused, they did not meet him. They also gave him an appointment letter (Exhibit Ka-3), fee slip (Exhibit Ka-4) and verification letter (Exhibit Ka-6).

¶22

P.W.-1 was cross-examined by the defence counsel wherein he stated that on 14.11.2013 he was in Mewalal Bagiya, Naini with Vijaykrishna Pandey, Lalbabu Vishwakarma. He had met RVD for the first time in the year 2013 in Mewalal Bagiya. Vimal Pandey, deceased had introduced him to me. RVD had told him that he would get him a job. He had sold his land and had with him the money given to him in consideration. He doesn't remember when he had executed the sale deed but it was in the year 2013. It is further stated that he had paid Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) to RVD at Khan Chowraha on 10.08.2013. It is further stated that at the time of giving money, he was with Vijaykrishna Pandey and Lalbabu Vishwakarma. Later on RVD had given him the appointment letter. He had given money to RVD because he trusted him as his father worked in the railways. It is further stated that Lalbabu Vishwakarma is his friend and he met him at Mewalal Bagiya between 12:30 and 01:00. He stayed there for half an hour. Vijaykrishna Pandey was also with them. Vimal Pandey had told him to pay money to RVD at Khan Chowraha.

¶23

Thereafter, P.W.-2, Vijaykrishna Pandey s/o Late Lalta Prasad was examined before the Board. This witness has stated the same set of events as P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief. He has stated that RVD along with others had promised him to get him a job with the railways for the post of T.C if they pay him money to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/per candidate. He and other complainants/ informants had paid different sum of money to him and other accused on different dates the total amount paid was Rs. 21,00,000/- (Twenty One Lakhs). Rest Rs. 11,00,000/- (Eleven Lakhs) was decided to be paid after appointment. The accused had taken them for medical to Chittranjan and

¶24

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶25

5

¶26

Muzaffarpur where they were given fitness certificate. Accused, Aarti Devi, had given them appointment letters and identity cards and told them that they have been given a job in the railways and soon they would start receiving their salaries. It is further stated that when they went to the places mentioned in the appointment letters, they were told that the appointment letters are forged. They tried to meet the accused after coming back but the accused never met them but only gave them assurance that they would be given back the money. They never got it back. At this, they were sure that they have been cheated. After this they had gone to the police station to file a complaint (Exhibit ka-6). This witness thereafter proved the letters and certificates given to them by RVD and the other accused, namely, Exhibit Ka-7 to Exhibit Ka-13.

¶27

P.W.-2 was also cross-examined by the defence counsel wherein he stated that he had paid a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Four Lakh Fifty Thousand) to RVD and Chetan on 03.01.2014 at Khan Chowraha. He had given money in front of Vijay Pandey, Lalbabu, Vijay Shankar Mishra and Vimal Pandey. It was around noon when the money was given. He had taken a loan to arrange the money. It is further stated that he does not remember the denomination of the currency notes.

¶28

Thereafter, the prosecution has examined P.W.-3, HC Ravi Prakash Shukla s/o Late Ramnaresh Shukla. He is a formal witness. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that on 21.09.2014, he was posted at P.S. Naini as a Constable. The instant case was registered after getting the directions from the SHO. The application was dictated by him and typed by Computer Constable, Manoj Kumar. The certified copy of the F.I.R (Exhibit Ka-14) was proved by him. On the basis of the F.I.R, he made an entry in the GD (Exhibit – Ka15), which is in his handwriting.

¶29

P.W.-3 was cross-examined by the defence counsel wherein he stated that he was given the application (Exhibit Ka-6) by Achyutanand Pandey. Many other people had also signed the same. Achyutanand was accompanied by Lalbabu and Vinaykrishna when he arrived at police station. The other two men who made signatures on the application did not come to the police station.

¶30

Thereafter, P.W.-4, Investigating Officer, Shaym Dev Singh, was examined as a formal witness. This witness has stated in the examination-in-chief that he got the investigation from the former investigating officer, Dinanath Pandey. The first CD was written by the

¶31

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶32

6

¶33

former Investigating Officer. He was given the investigation from CD 2 onwards. The chargesheet was filed against RVD and Vinay Dubey under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. This witness has proved the certified copy of the charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-16). The former Investigating Officer, Dinanath Pandey, had prepared the site map which was also signed by him. The signatures of the former Investigating Officer was proved by P.W.-4.

¶34

P.W.-4 was cross-examined by the defence counsel. He has stated that when he got the investigation, he had seen the appointment letters which was for the post of T.C. The site map was made by the former Investigating Officer. He does not remembers how much money was paid by Vijaykumar Pandey to RVD. But he had given the money to accused. The complaints told him that all the money was paid in cash after arranging them to the complainants. When the informant asked RVD and the other accused, he was threatened that they would murder him.

¶35

The juvenile Justice Board after considering the evidence on record held that the offences alleged against the revisionist are fully made out and directed him to be kept in custody in State Special Home for maximum period of three years on the basis of his conviction under all the sections.

¶36

The Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order of trial court and hence this revision.

¶37

After hearing the counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A appearing for State-opposite party no. 1, this court finds that all the victims were not produced and examined as prosecution witnesses; payment of amount in cash was not established by prosecution; mode of payment/amount paid to revisionist RVD was not established beyond doubt by prosecution; testimony of P.W.-1 does not establishes complicity of the revisionist RVD; testimony of P.W.-1 clearly enumerates call letter (exhibit KA-1) was given by Abhay Dubey named co-accused (not charge sheeted); issuance of appointment letter (exhibit KA-3), Fee slip (exhibit KA-4) and verification letter (exhibit KA-6) were not established by prosecution; no independent witness of any incident was produced by prosecution; arrangement of money and amount available with P.W.-1 not established by prosecution; P.W.-1 was not able to establish execution of sale deed which has been stated

¶38

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶39

7

¶40

to be the source for the funds/amounts paid to the accused; P.W.-1 was not able to establish that appointment letter was given by revisionist; P.W.-2 was not able to establish payment of money to the revisionist RVD; specific case of P.W.-2 was that appointment letter was not given by present revisionist and the accused giving appointment letter was not charge sheeted by the police/investigation officer; witness to alleged payment of money allegedly to revisionist was not produced by prosecution and their testimony was not recorded; P.W.-2 was not able to establish source of money and arrangement of money; testimony of P.W.-3 does not supports the case of the prosecution and the signatory in the complaint/tehrir are not confirmed. They differ from the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and there is material contradiction; testimony of P.W.-4 I.0. Shyam Dev Singh does not establish forged appointment letter. 17. P.W.-4 in his testimony had merely stated that he had spoken to railway authorities and they informed appointment letter was forged but no details of name of person and designation enumerated by P.W.-4; P.W.-4 in his testimony during cross states that he does not remember as to how much money was paid to revisionist and as to how much money has been paid by other persons to the accused; P.W.-4 denies investigating the source of funds/money of the complainant/informant; Investigating officer/police have not taken specimen seals and signatures of the issuing authorities; FIR is highly belated, the delay is of around 8 months; belated FIR is fatal for the prosecution; ingredients for committing offences under the alleged Sections of IPC do not appear to be made out against the revisionist there is no impersonation by revisionist; money taken by revisionist was not established beyond doubt by prosecution; forgery of any valuable security alleged by prosecution, which confirms implication under Section 467 of the revisionist was not established; forgery as defined U/s 463 IPC was also not established by prosecution in the present case as against the revisionist; offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC also do not stand established by the prosecution against the revisionist.

¶41

It is not the case of prosecution that there was common intention and act done by the accused were in furtherance of common intention and therefore the conviction of the revisionist U/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is bad in the eyes of law and against the facts and evidence of the case. The findings of the court below are perverse and the conclusion is unsustainable in the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case.

¶42

CRLR No. 2064 of 2024

¶43

8

¶44

The prosecution was not able to prove that revisionist has committed the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the revisionist RVD is against the facts and evidence of the case on record.

¶45

The judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 19.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 alongwith the judgement of the appellate court dated 09.04.2024 are hereby set aside.

¶46

The Criminal Revision is allowed .

¶47

¶48

Let the record be returned to the trial court within a week along with copy of this judgment.

¶49

November 4, 2025 Rohit

¶50

(Siddharth,J.)

¶51

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rvd v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rvd v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

D Alias v Alias Ar Minor vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Maina Devi vs State of Up and Another

Bhikam Singh vs State of U.P.