Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev And Anr on 15 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH WEST : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
Sessions Case No. 840/2024
CNR No. DLNW01-010393-2025
FIR No. 342/2020
Police Station : South Rohini
Under Section : 308/323/427/506/34 IPC
State V/s 1. Sanjeev
S/o Raj Singh Rana
R/o H.No. 86, A Block
Shahbad Dairy, Outer District
Delhi.
2. Suraj
S/o Sh. Sahaj Ram
R/o Village Basudi,
District Sonipat
Sonipat Sadar,
Haryana.
.... Accused
Date of committal to 25.10.2024
this court
Date of final 14.01.2026
arguments
Date of Judgment 15.01.2026
Appearance : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. counsel for both accused.
JUDGMENT
1. This case emerges from an incident of road rage that escalated into a violent confrontation on the busy streets of Delhi. The accused persons stand trial for allegedly assaulting complainant Pawan and his wife Seema, damaging their car and Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed by SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 1 / 9 Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:00 +0530 threatening them with life.
2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 20.09.2020 at about 5:00 PM, the complainant along with his wife and 8 years old son was passing through Avantika Market, Sector 2, Rohini via M2K Mall, by his car bearing registration no. HR-26DY-0028 and reached at Avantika Chowk Red Light. All of a sudden, another car bearing registration no. DL-5CP-9321, being driven rashly, came from behind. Complainant asked the driver of the said car to drive the vehicle carefully, where-after the driver of the car bearing registration no. DL-5CP-9321 started abusing the complainant. The driver of the said car alighted from his car and tried to open the window of the car of the complainant. Complainant also alighted from his car, where-after he was caught hold by the driver of the car bearing registration no. DL-5CP-9321, while his associate hit him on his head with a helmet, causing injury. On seeing this, wife of the complainant also alighted from the car, then both the assailants grappled with her as well, stating that they belong to Gogi gang and hardly take a minute to shoot anyone. They even broke the front wind shield of their car with the helmet. Wife of the complainant called the police at 100 number, where-after both the assailants ran away from there, leaving their car at the spot.
3. The complainant visited PS South Rohini, from where he was taken to BSA Hospital, where he was medically treated. Statement of complainant was recorded, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. The vehicle of the assailants was seized. Thereafter, from Traffic Control Room, IO came to know Nisha that the owner of the said vehicle was one Sumit, who on being Sahay Saxena Digitally signed SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 2 / 9 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:07 +0530 served with notice u/s 133 MV Act, appeared before the police and stated that at the relevant time his said car was being driven by his friend i.e. accused Sanjeev. On being called by Sumit, his said friend / accused Sanjeev came, wearing a torn blood stained T-shirt. Accused Sanjeev was arrested on identification by the complainant Pawan. During interrogation, accused Sanjeev revealed the name of his associate as Suraj and got recovered the said helmet. Accused Suraj was granted anticipatory bail by the court.
4. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for offence punishable u/s 308/341/427/506/34 IPC. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions u/s 209 Cr.P.C. for their trial. As prima facie case for the offence u/s 308/323/427/506/34 IPC was made out against the accused persons, charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The prosecution has examined three witnesses. PW1 Seema (wife of complainant Pawan), PW2 ASI V. Narayana and PW 3 Sumit (owner of offending vehicle). Injured / complainant Pawan was reported to have expired on 21.04.2025 and his death certificate was taken on record.
6. PW 1 Smt. Seema deposed that on 20.09.2020, she alongwith her husband late Sh. Pawan and son Dikshan, aged around 8 years, were going towards M2K Mall via Avantika Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 3 / 9 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:13 +0530 Market, Sector-2, Rohini and at about 5 PM, when they reached at red light cross of Avantika Chowk, one Swift car bearing registration number DL5CP 9321 came from their backside, which was being driven very rashly. Her husband late Sh. Pawan asked the driver of the said car to drive carefully, but he started abusing and stopped his car in front of their car, thereby obstructing their way. The driver and other occupant of the said car alighted from the car and started opening the window/door of their car. Thereafter, her husband alighted from the car and then one out of said boys caught hold of her husband and his other associate gave a blow of helmet on the head of her husband. After seeing all this, she also alighted from the car and then they both grappled with her also and pushed her. They were saying that they were the members of Gogi gang and they can shoot anybody in one minute. They had also broken the front wind shield of their car with the helmet. They had given 2-3 blows of helmet to her husband and had also given kicks and fists blows. She dialed number 100 and thereafter, they both escaped from there leaving behind their car at the spot as crowd had gathered there. They reached Police station from where she and her husband were taken to BSA Hospital. Her phone was also damaged in the said incident. When they were waiting in the PS to receive the copy of FIR, police had brought one out of the said two boys, who had committed the incident with them and she had identified him, whose name was revealed to her by the police as Sanjeev Rana and he had disclosed the name of his other associate as Suraj. She correctly identified both the accused persons. She identified the signature of her husband Pawan at point A on the complaint Ex.PW1/A, as also on the site plan, seizure memos of t-shirt of accused, t-shirt of Pawan as well as seizure memos of vehicle No. Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 4 / 9 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:20 +0530 HR26 DY 0028 and DL5CP 9321, arrest memo of accused Sanjeev at points A. She also identified the photographs of both the cars as well as the t-shirt which her husband was wearing at the time of incident and the helmet with which accused had inflicted injuries to her husband.
7. However, in her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW 1 Smt. Seema admitted it to be correct that she had not signed any document of the charge-sheet. She denied the suggestion that she had not signed any document of the charge- sheet because she is a planted witness or that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident. She admitted it to be correct that she had seen the accused persons for the first time in the court on the last hearing. She did not remember whether the accused persons present in the court on the date of her deposition in the court, were the same persons, who were present on the day of incident at the spot or not. On being drawn her attention towards the accused persons and being asked as to whether the accused persons are the same persons, who had inflicted injuries to her or to her husband, she replied that the accused persons are not the persons who had inflicted injuries to her or to her husband on the day of incident. She did not remember the exact time when they reached the PS on the day of incident, but it was night time and they remained in the PS for about 30-45 minutes. She admitted it to be correct that the place of incident was a crowded area. She further admitted it to be that whatever she was stating during cross examination was her voluntary statement without any force or pressure. She further admitted it to be correct that her husband had given his no objection at the time of bail as the accused persons were not the same persons who had inflicted Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 5 / 9 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:26 +0530 injuries upon them on the day of incident vide order dated 26.12.2022.
8. The request of Ld. Prosecutor to re-examine the witness on the point of identity of the accused persons was allowed and on being put a specific question, she deposed that whatever, she has stated in her cross examination was her correct statement and at the time of recording of her examination, she was not well and therefore she had wrongly identified the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that she has been won over by the accused persons or that due to fear of the accused persons, she was not stating the true facts.
9. PW 2 ASI V. Narayana deposed about the investigation being carried out by him in the present case. He deposed that he had recorded the statement/complaint of Pawan and got the present FIR registered. In his cross examination, PW 2 admitted that the place of incident is a public place. In his presence, neither the Crime Team nor the FSL Team was called at the spot.
10. PW 3 Sumit deposed that he is the registered owner of Swift Dezire car bearing registration No. DL5CP 9321. On 20.09.2020, on being served with a notice U/s 133 MV Act, he had submitted his reply to the effect that, "car No. DL5CP 9321 is registered in his name and on 20.09.2020, his friend Sanjeev was driving his car". He correctly identified the accused Sanjeev as well as the photographs of his car.
11. The material surviving witness of the prosecution i.e. PW 1 Seema though in her examination in chief supported the Nisha Sahay Saxena SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 6 / 9 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:32 +0530 prosecution case, gave a detailed description of the incident as it took place and identified the accused persons as the assailants, who had not only caused injuries on the head of her husband (since deceased), but also broke the front wind shield of their car and ran away threatening them, but during her cross examination, she turned hostile and deposed that the accused persons are not the same persons, who had inflicted injuries to her and her husband on the day of incident. Even on being re-examined by Ld. Prosecutor, PW1 reiterated that her statement qua identification of accused persons during her cross examination was her correct version, giving an explanation that at the time of her examination in chief, she was not well and as such wrongly identified the accused persons. Injured Pawan has already expired. The prosecution dropped rest of its witnesses as the only surviving eye witness turned hostile. First IO of the case as well as the owner of the offending vehicle were also examined.
12. Ld. Prosecutor submitted that the injured Pawan expired on 21.04.2025 and his wife Smt. Seema has turned hostile and there is no other eye witness or any other scientific evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime, and that no purpose would be served by examining any police witnesses including the IO. Evidence was closed since it would not have served any purpose to examine remaining police witnesses and doctors to prove the proceedings conducted during the investigation.
13. Nothing incriminating against the accused has come on record and there was no material on record which could have Nisha been put to the accused. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Sahay Saxena SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 7 / 9 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:38 +0530 has been dispensed with.
14. I have heard final arguments and have gone through the entire record carefully.
15. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State has argued that the material witness did not support the prosecution case since the accused has won her over and the statements of witnesses were recorded correctly by the IO.
16. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and in the absence of any incriminating evidence against him, they cannot be convicted.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the documents as well the statements of the witnesses. I am of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of its material witness, who is PW1 Smt. Seema (wife of deceased complainant). As discussed above, the testimony of PW1 during her examination in chief and her cross examination is totally contrary to each other and as such cannot be believed.
18. It is the settled proposition of law that the testimony of official police witnesses is just a corroboratory piece of evidence, and the same, in the absence of the testimony of material witnesses, has no credibility and loses its value.
19. It is established law that it is the testimony of the Nisha Sahay injured / eye witness, which is most vital, to arrive at a logical Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 8 / 9 Saxena Date: 2026.01.15 16:27:47 +0530 conclusion qua the accused persons in respect of the offences, they have been charged with. In the case in hand, the only surviving eye witness has given a clean chit to both the accused persons.
20. Since the star witness of the prosecution, on whose testimony the case of the prosecution was based, absolved both the accused persons, there is nothing that survives in the prosecution case, which falls flat on its face, failing to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
21. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of both the accused persons. Accordingly, both the accused persons Sanjeev and Suraj are acquitted of the offence u/s 308/323/427/506/34 IPC.
22. Bail bonds of both the the accused persons stand cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. Original documents, if any, be released to the rightful owner after cancellation of the endorsement.
23. Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437 A CrPC in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each for a period of six months.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court Nisha by Nisha Sahay Saxena Sahay Date:
today i.e. 15th January, 2026 2026.01.15
Saxena 16:27:53
(Nisha Sahay Saxena) +0530
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi (k)
SC 840/24 State v. Sanjeev etc Page 9 / 9