Shivam vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 6384 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Shivam vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 December, 2025

                                                                               2025:UHC:11351


                                                            Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025

                                                           Judgment Delivered on: 18.12.2025

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                        Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024
Shivam                                                                       ...Revisionist
                                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand                                                      ...Respondent
                                              With
                        Criminal Revision No. 900 of 2024
Daulat Kanwar                                                               ...Revisionist
                                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand                                                      ...Respondent
Presence:

Counsel for the Revisionist: Ms. Shweta Jain, Advocate.

Counsel for the State: Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

                These connected Criminal Revisions have been preferred
by the Revisionists challenging the judgment and order dated
03.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 360 of 2023, as
well as the judgment and order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar in Criminal Appeal
No. 07 of 2024, whereby the Revisionists were acquitted of the charges
under Sections 386, 504 and 506 IPC but were convicted under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo three years'
simple imprisonment with fine.




                                                                                                  1
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


2.              Since both the revisions arise out of the same FIR, relate to
the same occurrence, involve common evidence and challenge
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, they are being
decided by this common judgment.

3.              The State's case, in brief, is that the informant was facing
criminal prosecution in another case involving serious offences under
the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present Revisionists, who
were known to the informant, assured him that upon payment of a sum
of ₹10,00,000, they would ensure that he was exonerated from the said
criminal case. Acting upon such assurance, the informant allegedly paid
the said amount, stated to be in the nature of a "police donation" or for
exerting influence. When no such exoneration followed, the present FIR
came to be lodged alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.

4.              After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the
Revisionists were put to trial. The learned trial court, upon appreciation
of evidence, acquitted the Revisionists of the charges under Sections
386, 504 and 506 IPC, but held them guilty under Sections 420 and
120-B IPC. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the appellate
court, giving rise to the present revisions.

5.              Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.

6.              Learned counsel for the Revisionists, Ms. Shweta Jain,
submitted that the conviction recorded under Section 420 IPC is legally
unsustainable, as the State has failed to establish the foundational
requirement of dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged
transaction.




                                                                                                  2
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


7.              It was urged that even if the State's case is accepted at its
highest, the material on record does not disclose that the Revisionists
made any false representation with the intention to deceive the
informant at the time when the alleged amount was paid.

8.              It was contended that the informant and the Revisionists
were admittedly well acquainted and shared prior political and social
association. The Revisionist Daulat Kanwar had contested elections
earlier, and the informant himself claimed to have supported him
financially. In such circumstances, the allegation of deception was
argued to be implausible and reflective of a subsequent breakdown of
relations rather than a pre-planned act of cheating.

9.              Learned counsel for the Revisionist emphasised that the
alleged payment of ₹10,00,000/- has been described as having been
made in the name of a "police donation", which is vague, improbable,
and incapable of constituting inducement under Section 420 IPC. At the
highest, the allegations disclose an unfulfilled assurance or failed
expectation, which does not attract criminal liability.

10.             It was further submitted that the informant himself was
facing multiple serious criminal cases, and the present FIR was lodged
with an ulterior motive to exert pressure or gain leverage. The
possibility of false implication, it was argued, has not been adequately
examined by the courts below, which proceeded on assumptions rather
than legal proof.

11.             Learned counsel also assailed the conviction under Section
120-B IPC, submitting that there is no independent evidence to
establish any prior meeting of minds or agreement between the
Revisionists to commit an illegal act. Reliance was placed on settled


                                                                                                  3
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


law to contend that, in the absence of dishonest intention at inception,
the conviction under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC cannot be sustained.

12.             Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State
supported the impugned judgments and submitted that the prosecution
evidence clearly establishes that the Revisionists induced the informant
to part with a substantial amount of money by assuring him that his
pending criminal cases would be managed and that he would be
exonerated.

13.             It was argued that the testimony of the informant, when
read in conjunction with the statements of other prosecution witnesses
and the surrounding circumstances, discloses a consistent and credible
State's case demonstrating dishonest inducement and resultant wrongful
loss. It was submitted that the courts belowhave correctly appreciated
this evidence.

14.             Learned State counsel contended that prior acquaintance
between the parties does not negate criminality. On the contrary, the
existing relationship was exploited by the Revisionists to gain the
informant's trust and to induce him to part with money on the strength
of false assurances.

15.             It was further submitted that the acts of the Revisionists
were not isolated but were part of a concerted design, thereby attracting
the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.According
to the learned counsel for the State, the collective conduct of the
Revisionistssufficiently establishes their shared intention.

16.             Lastly, learned State counsel urged that both the trial court
and the appellate court have concurrently recorded findings of guilt
after due appreciation of evidence, and that in revisional jurisdiction


                                                                                                  4
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


this Court ought not to interfere unless perversity or patent illegality is
shown, which is absent in the present case.

17.             This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and has carefully examined the entire material placed on
record, including the judgments of the trial court and the appellate
court. The challenge in the present revisions is essentially directed
against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts
below. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this
Court is not expected to reassess the evidence as if sitting in appeal, but
is required to examine whether the findings suffer from perversity,
manifest illegality, or a patent miscarriage of justice.

18.             In the present case, both the courts below have returned a
concurrent finding that the informant was induced to part with a
substantial amount of money on the assurance that his pending criminal
cases would be managed and that he would be exonerated. The trial
court, after analysing the oral testimony of the informant and other
prosecution witnesses, as well as the surrounding circumstances, found
that the representation was not a vague promise or an expression of
hope, but a definite assurance calculated to induce delivery of money.
The appellate court has independently examined this aspect and has
affirmed the said finding with cogent reasons.

19.             The argument advanced on behalf of the Revisionists that
the transaction amounted merely to a failed promise or a civil dispute
has been duly considered by the courts below and has been rejected on
a reasoned appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded indicate that
the dishonest intention was inferred not in isolation, but from the
totality of circumstances, including the nature of the assurance, the


                                                                                                  5
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


vulnerability of the informant owing to pending criminal cases, and the
conduct of the Revisionists before and after the alleged payment. Such
inference, drawn from proved facts, cannot be said to be perverse or
legally unsustainable.

20.             The contention that the alleged payment was described as a
"police donation" and, therefore, incapable of constituting inducement,
also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The courts below have
not rested the conviction merely on nomenclature, but on the substance
of the transaction and the context in which the amount was obtained.
The mere description of the payment does not efface the finding that it
was obtained pursuant to an assurance which the courts have found to
be dishonest in nature.

21.             As regards the conviction under Section 120-B IPC, this
Court finds that the courts below have correctly applied the settled
principle that conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence and may
be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the chain of
circumstances. The concurrent finding that the acts of the Revisionists
were inter-linked and formed part of a concerted design is based on
appreciation of evidence and does not disclose any legal infirmity
warranting revisional interference.

22.             The submission that the informant was himself facing
criminal proceedings and, therefore, had a motive to falsely implicate
the Revisionists has also been considered by the courts below. The mere
existence of criminal cases against the informant does not, by itself,
render his testimony unreliable. The courts below have scrutinised his
evidence with caution and have found it to be trustworthy on material
particulars. This Court finds no perversity in such appreciation.


                                                                                                  6
Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No.
900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".




                                                                                   Ashish Naithani J.
                                                                                2025:UHC:11351


23.             It bears reiteration that the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court is a supervisory one. Where two courts have concurrently
evaluated the evidence and returned findings supported by reasons and
material on record, this Court would be slow to interfere unless the
conclusions are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at
them. The present case does not disclose any such exceptional
circumstance.

24.             This Court is also mindful of the legal principles relied
upon by learned counsel for the Revisionists with regard to the
requirement of dishonest intention at the inception for constituting an
offence under Section 420 IPC. The said principles are well settled and
are not in dispute. However, their application depends upon the facts of
each case.

24.             In the present matter, the courts below have, on
appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that such dishonest
intention stood established. This Court finds no error in the application
of law to the facts as found.

25.             For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court does not
find any merit in the present criminal revisions. The judgments and
orders dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 360 of
2023, and dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal
No. 07 of 2024, do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or
jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.

                                         ORDER

Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No. 900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11351

Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 900 of 2024 are dismissed.

The conviction and sentence of the Revisionists, as affirmed by the appellate court, are hereby upheld.

Ashish Naithani, J.

SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd 40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283 D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.12.18 17:44:39 +05'30'

Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024, "Shivam vs. State of Uttarakhand along with Criminal Revision No. 900 of 2024, "Daulat Kanwar vs. State of Uttarakhand".

Ashish Naithani J.