Devendra Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1785 of 2026

¶3

Devendra Singh Yadav

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ram Bahadur, Advocate	Satyadeo	Shamra, Sr.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ram Bahadur Kushwaha, learned counsel for the revisionist, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Prayagraj, in Sessions Trial No. 1272 of 2025 (State Vs. Devendra Singh Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the revisionist has been implicated in the said offence only because he is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the revisionist and Deepa Yadav took place after a love affair between them, and both were residing in a rented house. There was neither any demand for dowry nor has any cruelty ever been committed by the revisionist against the deceased.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted that the revisionist wanted to settle his family and had also transferred an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the account of his wife on 14.04.2025. There is no evidence against him. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the revisionist had also purchased a sewing machine for an amount of Rs. 4,600 on 27.02.2025. He had also purchased jewellery, i.e., D.K. locket and

¶11

CRLR No. 1785 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

mangalsutra, on 15.06.2025 for an amount of Rs. 64,946. Hence, he was taking good care of his wife. The discharge application has been wrongly rejected. The charges have been framed without any substance. Therefore, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the criminal revision.

¶15

As per the contents of the F.I.R., the alleged incident took place on 10.07.2025 at 21:40 hours, and the information was received at the police station on 11.07.2025 at 03:29 hours. The F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the deceased, wherein allegations of demand for dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs have been made, and it has been alleged that the accused has killed his daughter.

¶16

As per the F.I.R., the death of the deceased had been informed by the accused, Devendra Singh Yadav (revisionist), himself. He was in an injured condition and verbally informed that his name is Devendra Singh Yadav and that he is a resident of Preetam Nagar. He further informed that his wife had committed suicide herself. On receiving the said information, the S.I. went to the residence of the informant at Preetam Nagar, and at the same time, the S.H.O. also reached the spot. When they entered the house, they saw that Deepa, wife of Devendra, was lying dead on the floor of the house and a large amount of blood was scattered on the floor.

¶17

After a detailed investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist/accused under Sections 80(2)/85 of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.

¶18

Prima facie, there is a contradiction in the statement of the revisionist. When he entered the police station, he stated that his wife had hanged herself , but when the police reached his residence, the dead body of his wife was lying on the floor. If she had hanged herself, then how did her dead body come to be lying on the floor?

¶19

These are all questions of fact, and no final finding can be recorded at this stage. The offence is heinous and grave in nature, and the charge sheet has already been filed against the revisionist/accused, who is the husband of the deceased.

¶20