Delhi District Court
Shahnawaz Alias Raja vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02(NE),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CA No. 24/2025
Shahnawaz @ Raja
S/o late Munna
R/o. House No. E-14/G, 399,
G Block, New Seelampur,
Delhi-110094
...Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
...Respondent
Date of assignment : 10.03.2025
Date of Arguments : 02.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026
Decision : Appeal partly allowed
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.08.2024 and sentence dated 28.10.2024 passed by Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-02), North-East, Karkardooma, Delhi in case bearing FIR No.288/2015 PS Seelampur.
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State 2026.02.02 Page No.1/12
04:06:49
+0530
2. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of DD No.35A dated 13.04.2015, HC Ram Mahesh reached at the spot, where complainant Shabnam met him and she gave complaint that a boy namely Shahnawaz @ Raja used to sit near the main door of her house and she came to know that he sells smack. It is further stated that on 13.04.2015, at about 2:30 pm, that boy sat outside her house, she asked him as to what was he doing by sitting here. On this, he abused her, slapped and assaulted her. He also touched her chest, threatened her to kill and fled away by using abusive words. Complainant made a call at 100 number.
3. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that there are several contradictions in the evidence of complainant, there is no public witness to the offence. Further, complainant is not consistent in her complaint and statements before the Court. Further, the PCR call was regarding the quarrel only. Further, accused moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. but his application was dismissed and he was not given opportunity to cross- examine the complainant. He is falsely implicated in this case.
4. Further it is submitted that the Ld. Judge convicted the accused for a period of one year and six months for the offence under section 354, 509 and 323 IPC which is on higher side. It is submitted that appellant is facing trial for Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State 2026.02.02 Page No.2/1204:06:56 +0530 more than nine years and he has been regularly attending the proceedings of the case. He was only eighteen years of age at the time of commission of crime and was not extended the benefit of probation, being the first time convict in any case.
5. I have heard the counsel and gone through the record of the case.
Findings
6. While passing the judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has specifically observed that the testimony of complainant has remained consistent through out i.e. original complaint as well as in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Court as PW1. It is observed that the complainant has correctly deposed about the date of incident, the place of incident, presence of accused at the spot, the verbal abuse and sexual remarks stated to her thereby insulting her modesty and the use of criminal force by the accused upon her chest/region. It is observed that everything is stated without any material contradictions.
7. On the other hand, it is mentioned in appeal that there are material contradictions in the statement of complainant, in FIR, statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposition before the Court as PW1. However, it is not stated what are the discrepancies in the statements, the specific Digitally signed by TWINKLE CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State TWINKLE WADHWA Page No.3/12 WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:03 +0530 discrepancies are not mentioned nor are stated during oral arguments. Once Ld Trial Court has taken an opinion and given a judgment based on the same, it is not sufficient to take vague plea that the observation is not correct or that there are discrepancies. It was incumbent on accused to specifically point out the discrepancies and how they are material but nothing is stated in specific. The complainant has specifically mentioned about the sexual allegations of using criminal force on her body consistently in her statements. Further, she has not been cross-examined despite giving opportunity nor has the accused himself stepped into the witness box to prove his case. Hence, there is no cross-examination on record to shake the statement and testimony of the complainant. Though it is correct that prosecution has to prove its own case and is not benefited from the fact that there is no cross- examination of the material witness, but otherwise also the prosecution has been able to prove its case .
8. It is further submitted that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. However, the said order has already attained finality. Accused had the option to avail remedy against the said order but he did not avail the said remedy, he did not approach any higher Court whereby challenging the order of the dismissal of application under section 311 Cr.P.C. The said order has Digitally signed by CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State TWINKLE Page No.4/12 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:09 +0530 already attained the finality now and cannot be challenged at this stage.
9. It is further argued that father of accused is not made a witness in this case, if he was present as per the case of the prosecution. Further it is mentioned by her in her statement that drugs were found from him but there is no seizure of any such drugs from accused. Further, these questions regarding drugs could have been answered by the IO but IO is not examined in this case.
10.However it is noted that when IO did not appear despite repeated opportunities, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. Further, IO was only to prove the investigation of the case. Further it is not the case of the prosecution that any drugs were seized from him, hence non examination of IO on that aspect is not fatal to the prosecution's case. Further non-examination of father of accused has not affected the case of the prosecution, which prosecution has been able to successfully prove by way of testimony of complainant only.
11. When an appeal is filed, accused is expected to specifically point out each and every finding of the trial Court which he is aggrieved with, which is not done in this case. It is vaguely mentioned in the appeal that allegations are general in nature. An appellate Court does not sit as the Court of first instance, its jurisdiction is invoked to Digitally signed by TWINKLE CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State TWINKLE WADHWA Page No.5/12 WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:14 +0530 examine the correctness and legality of the findings of fact and law recorded by the Trial Court. Hence, it was incumbent upon the appellant to point out with precision, the errors committed by Ld. Trial Court while appreciating the evidence or applying the law. Once a Court of competent jurisdiction has formed an opinion on a given set of facts, the same cannot be unsettled lightly.
12. However, in the present case, it is not specifically pointed out what is the infirmity in the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Appeal contains vague and general assertions that the judgment is erroneous. Such bald averments without any reference to particular findings or contradictions, do not constitute valid ground of appeal.
13. Hence, it is a well passed judgment and same is upheld.
14. The Ld. Counsel has addressed detailed arguments on the point of sentence. It is submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case, he has faced trial for more than nine years and has been regularly appearing on every date. Further, he was only 18 years of age at the time of commission of crime and hence was entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He had no prior involvement on the date when this case was registered against him. He has already spent 20 days in custody. Further, the real dispute was that he was taking drugs outside the house of complainant which aggrieved the TWINKLE CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State WADHWA Page No.6/12 Digitally signed by TWINKLE WADHWA Date: 2026.02.02 04:07:27 +0530 matter and the false complaint has been filed by the complainant. He is only 26 years now and has a family to take care of. Hence, it is prayed that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be given to him.
15. The same is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State threby submitting that this is an offence committed against a woman and benefit of probation may be declined.
16. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
17. The first issue to the grant of relief of probation to the accused is that as he is convicted under Section 354 of IPC which provides a mandatory minimum punishment of one year, hence, if the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted to the accused. This issue has already been dealt with by undersigned in Kapil v. State of NCT of Delhi dated 06.05.2025 in CA No. 51/2022 by citing various judgments mentioned herein.
18. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Lakhvir Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 47-48 of 2021 (AIR 2021 SC 555, AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 15) wherein it is observed that :-
"10. We may notice that since we are concerned with the appellants who were under 21 years of age on the date of the offence and not on the date of conviction, Section 6 would not come to their aid. In a subsequent judgment of this Court, it was noted that in Masarullah (supra), this Court had calculated the age of the convict as on the date of commission of the offence incorrectly and there has been no discussion Digitally signed by CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State TWINKLE Page No.7/12 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:34 +0530 of the potential tension Masarullah vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1982 3 SCC 458, pr.6. Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2008) 3 SCC 111. between grant of probation under the Act and the mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years under Section 397 of the IPC.
11. The legal position insofar as invocation of Section 4 is concerned has been analysed in Ishar Das vs. State of Punjab10 elucidating that non- obstante clause in Section 4 of the Act reflected the legislative intent that provisions of the Act have effect notwithstanding any other law in force at that time. The observation in Ramji Missar (supra) was cited with approval to the effect that in case of any ambiguity, the beneficial provisions of the Act should receive wide interpretation and should not be read in a restricted sense.
12. The aforesaid aspect is confirmed by the wording of the said Act which reads as under:
"18. Saving of operation of certain enactments. -- Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897), or sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or Borstal Schools." (1973) 2 SCC 65.
13. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE Digitally signed by CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State TWINKLE Page No.8/12 TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:43 +0530 vs. Bahubali11. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act.12 It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab are in the same context.
19. A bare perusal of the above excerpt would show that in a case punishable under Section 397 IPC, the benefit of probation was not declined to the accused only because minimum punishment was prescribed. It was opined that Probation of Offenders Act itself provides the Acts wherein its beneficiary provisions are not applicable and IPC is not one of them, hence, benefit of probation can be extended to accused if made out on merits of the case. Further, Section 354 IPC does not contain any clause thereby excluding the application of the beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be given to accused if made out on merits of the case.
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02 04:07:48 CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State +0530 Page No.9/12
20. Further, question of probation was not raised before Ld. Trial Court. The question whether the plea of probation could be raised before the Appellate Court for the first time in appeal is no more res integra. It has been held in various judgments that even where the question of granting probation was not considered by Ld. Trial Court, it can be considered by Appellate Court.
21. In the judgment of Munna @ Jabir Vs. State of UP of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Crl. Appeal No. 708 of 2023 dated 12.05.2022), accused was convicted under Section 354 read with Section 452 IPC, however, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed that accused had no criminal history and had not been convicted in any of the cases. Hence, benefit of probation was extended.
22. In Hamir Singh Vs. State of Punjab of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (2009 Legal Eagle (P&H) 683;
2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 64 dated 15.04.2009), accused had entered the house of his neighbour and committed assault upon her with intention to outrage the modesty and also threatened her. Hon'ble High Court observed that he is the first time offender. He was merely 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence, hence, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was extended to him.
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02
04:07:55
+0530
CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State Page No.10/12
23. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is a reformative legislation aimed at preventing first-time and minor offenders from being subjected to the harsh environment of prisons. The Act embodies the principle that punishment should not always be retributive but also rehabilitative, especially for young offenders and those convicted of minor offenses. It allows courts to release offenders on probation instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, provided they meet certain criteria. This probationary period is supervised, ensuring that the offender adheres to conditions set by the court, such as maintaining good behavior, reporting to a probation officer, or engaging in community service. The Act seeks to reintegrate such individuals into society without the stigma of incarceration, thus preventing them from becoming habitual criminals. If an offender is below 21 years of age or has committed a minor, non-heinous offense, the court is expected to consider probation as the first option. If probation is denied, the Court must record special reasons for imposing imprisonment. The Act also aligns with modern criminal jurisprudence, which recognizes that rehabilitation can be more effective than punitive measures in reducing crime rates. By allowing offenders to remain in society under supervision, it gives them an opportunity to reform while also ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is both fair and constructive.
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State WADHWA Date: Page No.11/12 2026.02.02 04:08:04 +0530
24. The appellant was eighteen years of age at the time of commission of offence. He has faced the trial for nine long years. As per report, he has not been convicted in any other case. He has already spent 20 days in custody. The Trial Court has not recorded the reason why benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was not extended to him. He is married now, 26 years of age and has a family to take care of.
Conclusion
25. Considering the both aggravating and mitigating factors and the fact that he has not been convicted in any other case, it is deemed appropriate to extend benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to him. He is directed to be released on furnishing probation bond for three months.
26. Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Digitally
signed by
TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2026.02.02
04:08:10
+0530
Announced in open court (TWINKLE WADHWA)
today on 02.02.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02
(NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CA No. 24/2025 Shahnawaz @ Raja v. State Page No.12/12